HF 

2651 


B84 


EfJSlTY  OP      I 
.IFQRNIA  I 

li  Dieeo    "-# 


UNiYEf 
CALIFORNIA 
SAU 


CONCISE  RESUME 


SUGAR  TARIFF  TOPICS 


IN  DEFENCE  OF 


AMERICAN  SUGAR  INDUSTRIES 

ANl> 

Coiisiiniers,  Coniiiiercial,  aud  Revenue  Interests 

AGAINST    ILLICIT    INVASION, 

THE  HAWAII  TREATY,  Etc. 


BY 


'HENRY  A.   BROWN, 

Ex-Special  Treasury  Agent ^  TJ.  S.,  Saxonville,  Mass. 


WASHINGTON,    D.    C: 
JUDD  &  DETWEILER,  PRINTERS  AND  PUBLISHERS. 

LS82. 


CONTENTS. 


SECTION  FIKST. 

Sugar  Making  from  Cane  Juice;  Cuban  and  Demerara  Crystal  Making  verms 
American  Sugar  Industries ;  Vacuum  Pan  Coloration  Devices ;  Producing 
Countries  ;  Production  and  Consumption  of  Sugar  ;  Louisiana  and  other  Sugar 
Producing  States  ;  Dutch  Standard  and  Tariff  Defects ;  Effects  upon  Consumers 
and  Home  Industries;  Official  Classifications  for  Duty;  Unwise  Dependence 
on  Cuba  and  Spanish  Possessions  for  Sugar ;  Statements,  Statistics,  and 
National  Eequirements,  Etc.,  Etc. 

SECTION  SECOND. 

Hawaiian  Sugars  versus  Dutiable  Sugars ;  Pernicious  Results  of  the  Reciprocity 
Treaty  ;  Pacific  Coast  Consumers  of  Sugars  Oppressed  Thereby ;  Eastern 
Refined  Sugars  Prohibited  in  California ;  Comparative  Exhibit  of  American 
Commerce  with  Hawaii  ;  Loss  of  Duty  on  Hawaii  Sugars  Annually  exceeds 
our  Sales  of  Domestic.  Merchandise  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands;  The  Treaty 
Violated  by  Hawaii  and  Pacific  Coast  Monopolists  ;  Impending  danger  of 
Annexation  ;  Statements  and  Statistics,  Etc.,  Etc. 


SECTION  THIRD. 

Comparative  Sugar  Tariff"  Analyses;  Animus  of  The  Carlisle  Sugar  Bill,  and  other 
Uniform  Duty  on  Sugar  Plans  ;  The  Present  Sugar  Tariff';  Advalorem  Equiva- 
lents ;  Tariff"  and  Dutch  Standard  Defects ;  Compound  Sugar  Tariff'  Exhibit ; 
Folly  and  Danger  of  Wholesale  Reduction  of  Sugar  Duty  ;  Canadian  Sugar 
Tariff  Examples ;  Refining  Sugar  in  Bond  ;  Congress  and  the  Executive  ; 
Existing  Tariff"  Abuses  and  Defects  in  Levying  Duty  ;  Statements  and  Statistics  ; 
Tariff"  Amendment  and  Remedies,  Etc.,  Etc. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress  by  Henry  A.  Brown,  January,  1882. 


SECTION  FIRST. 


HP 


Sugar  Making  from  Cane  Juice — Demerara  Crystals  versus 
American  Industries— Producing  Countries— Consump- 
tion, Production  and  National  Requirements — Classifica- 
tions under  the  Dutch  Standard. 


Sugar  cane  juice,  and  virtually  the  juice  of  all  sugar  producing 
trees,  plants  and  vegetables,  when  expressed  therefrom,  is  generallv 
of  a  greenish  yellow  color  and  exhibits  gra3-ish  brown  globules  in 
suspense;  the  juice  is  cloudy  and  turbid,  and  contains  from  10  to 
20  per  cent,  of  sugar  crystals  in  solution,  with  80  to  90  per  cent,  of 
other  matter  consisting  of  water,  wood  fibre,  vegetable  wax,  gum 
or  albumen,  salts,  etc.,  in  varied  proportions. 

Owing  to  too  long  exposure  in  the  air  before  clarifying,  imperfect 
handling,  climatic  changes,  cutting  cane  too  early  or  too  late,  and 
defects  in  the  process  of  concentration,  most  of  which  may  be 
avoided,  cane  juice  seldom  yields  more  than  10  to  15  per  cent,  of 
sugar,  and  the  average  of  sugar  hitherto  obtained  therefrom  has 
not  been  more  than  9  per  cent.;  the  average  of  sugar  obtained  from 
sugar  beets  does  not  exceed  8  per  cent.,  and  from  sorghum  the  av- 
erage yield  in  sugar  is  about  7  per  cent.;  improvements  in  machinery, 
vacuum  pan  boiling,  and  more  skillful  handling  of  crops,  largely 
increase  the  sugar  yield  from  cane  and  beet  juice,  and  render  the 
production  more  profitable  and  rapid. 

By  reason  of  sudden  climatic  changes  and  the  less  tropical  tem- 
perature of  Louisiana  as  compared  with  Cuba,  Hawaii,  and  other 
sugar  producing  countries,  the  natural  difference  in  sugar  yield 
is  largely  in  favor  of  those  countries:  this  difference  is  as  12 
to  20,  that  is,  Cuban  cane  yields  juice  containing  an  average  of  20 
percent,  of  sugar,  and  Louisiana  cane  yields  juice  containing  an 
average  of  about  12  per  cent,  of  sugar ;  any  process  that  increases 
the  yield  from  Louisiana  cane,  would  increase  it  from  Cuban  cane 
pro  rata. 

Louisiana  also  pays  much  higher  than  Cuba  for  labor,  and  is 
struggling  under  many  disadvantages  out  of  the  old  feudal  and  slave 
system,  into  the  new  free  labor  and  equality  system  of  the  North.  This 
nation  is  largely  dependent  upon  Louisiana  and  home  sugar  pro- 
duction in  the  future,  to  check  the  rapacity  of  foreign  sugar  pro- 
ducing  countries  which  already  threaten  to  inundatethis  country 


with  abnormally  cheap  sugars  to  destroy  our  sugar  industries;  hav- 
ing done  which,  they  will  enhance  the  cost  of  sugar  food  in  the 
United  States  at  pleasure;  self  preservation  demands  tariff  protec- 
tion of  our  sugar  producing  industries. 

Deducing  from  general  results,  I  am  satislied  that  in  order  to  ob- 
tain the  highest  crystalline  yield,  after  cane  juice  is  expressed,  it 
should  be  heated  and  clarified  immediatelj',  to  prevent  fermentation 
which  changes  a  larger  percentage  of  the  crystals  contained  in  sol- 
ution in  the  juice,  into  various  solvent  impurities  such  as  gum, 
glucose,  and  invert  or  uncrystallizable  sugar  during  concentration, 
than  would  happen  if  the  juice  were  heated  and  clarified  without 
delay. 

Cane  juice  is  generally  passed  through  the  fumes  of  sulphurous 
gas  when  on  its  way  from  the  mill  to  defecators.  This  gas  has  a 
tendency  to  bleach  the  juice  which,  if  properly  done,  is  an  advan- 
vantage,  but  sulphurous  gas  has  powerful  affinity  with  oxygen, 
which  it  absorbs  from  the  atmosphere  with  great  rapidity,  and 
thereby  speedily  becomes  sulphuric  acid  which,  passing  into  the 
syrup,  hinders  crystallization  and  injures  the  product.  When  sul- 
phurous gas  is  used  to  brighten  juice  or  syrup,  every  precaution 
should  be  taken  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  outer  air. 

Manufacturing  raw  sugar  from  cane  juice  commonly  consists  of 
three  processes  conducted  substantially  as  follows :  By  the  old 
process  the  juice  is  first  heated  slowly  to  the  point  of  boiling  to 
clarity  it,  that  is,  to  precipitate  feculents  for  removal  from  the  raw 
juice.  When  the  heat  does  not  fully  separate  feculents  from  the 
juice,  and  when  acid  is  in  excess  therein  alkalies  are  used,  such  as 
quicklime,  milk  of  lime  and  bisulphate  of  lime.  The  quantity  of 
lime  required  is  determined  by  the  use  of  litmus  paper,  and  fecu- 
lents are  removed  by  skimming,  filtration  and  settling. 

The  clarified  juice  is  boiled  at  about  215°  F.  to  evaporate  the 
juice  and  reduce  it  to  syrup.  The  syrup  is  next  concentrated  to 
melada  by  more  rapid  boiling  at  an  increased  temperature,  which 
should  not  exceed  235°  to  238°  Fahrenheit,  at  which  point  the  best 
results  are  usually  obtained.  During  the  process  of  evaporation 
and  concentration,  acidity  in  excess  is  again  corrected  by  the  use  of 
lime,  and  feculents  that  rise  are  removed  by  skimming. 

Open  boilers,  or  kettles,  or  tanks  are  used  for  sugar  making  by 
this  process,  and  were  formerly  used  for  refining  sugars.  The  use 
of  animal  charcoal,  called  boneblack,  for  bleaching  the  syrup  has 
become  general  in  refining  sugar,  and  is  used  by  some  sugar 
makers.  Foreign  producers  of  vacuum-pan  centrifugals  or  Cuban 
and  Demerara  crystals,  bleach  the  juice  or  syrup  to  a  very  light 
straw  color,  nearly  white,  then  boil,  evaporate,  inspissate,  grain, 
and  when  intended  as  accessory  of  fraud,  doctor  or  discolor  the 
same  in  the  vacuum-pan  to  outwardly  imitate  raw  sugar  in  color. 
The  pretense  that  the  feculents  are  boiled  into  the  sugar  to  form 
dark  crystals  is  simply  absurd. 


Claying  raw  sugar,  also  formerly  practiced  in  retining  sugar, 
originated  as  a  process  for  bleaching  raw  sugars  in  China  and  Java, 
and  the  practice  quickly  extended  to  other  sugar  producing  coun- 
tries; the  raw  sugar  is  placed  in  cone  shaped  vessels  holding  some 
200  lbs.  or  more,  the  base  remains  open,  and  there  is  a  hole  in  the 
apex  for  drainage ;  the  cone  is  fixed  in  a  frame  in  an  inverted  position 
and  bleaching  is  begun. 

A  mixture  of  white  clay  and  water  is  placed  on  the  base  of  the 
cone,  and  the  clay  water  percolates  the  mass  of  sugar ;  when  the 
day  mixture  becomes  dry  it  is  removed,  and  fresh  clay  paste  applied 
until  the  base  of  the  cone  of  sugar  becomes  white ;  when  the 
drainage  ceases,  the  cone  is  removed  and  cut  into  cross  sections, 
each  of  which  differs  from  the  other  in  shade,  from  pure  white  at 
the  base,  to  light  brown  at  the  apex,  the  whole  having  a  grayish 
tinge. 

This  variety  in  shades  of  raw  sugars  clayed  in  Java,  originated 
the  Dutch  Standard  of  color  in  Holland,  which  for  more  than  forty 
years  until  vacumu  pan  crystal  coloring  subverted  this  natural  test, 
was  the  only  generally  accepted  method  of  determining  the  intrinsic 
quality  and  value  of  cane  sugar,  and  is  still  employed  in  all  sugar 
producing  countries  for  the  same  purpose  ;  but  owing  to  the  crystal 
coloring  devices  of  sugar  producers,  the  trade  adjuncts  of  analysis 
and  polarization,  in  connection  with  the  Dutch  Standard  are  now 
generally  employed  in  the  sugar  marts  of  the  world. 

Vacuum  pans  briefly  described  are  close  boilers  or  tanks,  oval  or 
pear  shaped,  of  any  size  up  to  a  boiler  in  which  50  or  more  tons  of 
syrup  may  be  grained  or  crystallized  ;  it  is  virtually  a  finishing  pan 
in  sugar  making  as  well  as  in  refining  sugar  ;  steam  passing  through 
coils  or  worms  of  pipe  in  the  closed  tank,  and  the  exclusion  of  outer 
air  causes  syrup  to  boil  at  a  low  enough  temperature  to  form  sugar 
crystals  at  pleasure;  attached  to  the  pan  or  tank  are  a  syrup  feeder, 
an  overrun  to  catch  grains  of  sugar  that  fly  off  in  the  vapor,  a  vapor 
condenser  into  which  cold  water  spray  is  admitted  and  which  has 
a  long  outlet  pipe  connected  with  a  water  tank  having  an  overflow 
pipe ;  the  boiling  sugar  is  viewed  through  a  glass  bullseye  in  the 
side  of  the  pan,  to  which  is  also  aflixed  a  testing  tube. 

By  the  use  of  the  vacuum  pan  in  sugar  boiling  and  in  refining 
sugar,  the  pressure  of  the  atmosphere  which  comes  in  contact  with 
the  syrup  when  boiling  in  open  pans,  is  reduced  by  exhaustion; 
boiling  in  vacuum-pans  reduces  the  loss  of  material  to  the  mini- 
mum of  waste  in  handling,  and  prevents  the  formation  of  formic 
acid,  which  darkens  boiling  syrup  and  hinders  crystallization  ;  this 
acid  is  formed  by  the  action  of  the  ox\'gen  of  the  outer  atmosphere 
upon  heated  sprup. 

Syrup  may  be  concentrated  in  the  vacuum-pan  to  the  point  of 
crystallization,  and  the  strike  be  made  when  the  crystals  have  begun 
to  form,  graining   will  continue  in  the  receivers  without  further 


evaporation  until  the  crystals  are  formed;  but  both  in  making  and 
refining  sugar,  in  order  to  build  up  the  crystals  and  obtain  the 
greatest  percentage  of  sugar  from  the  charge  of  syrup,  graining  in 
the  vacuum-pan  is  continued  by  the  addition  of  fresh  syrup,  until 
the  desired  result  is  reached,  when  the  strike  is  made. 

Sugar  is  separated  from  the  syrup  or  molasses  by  various  methods 
of  draining,  and  by  the  use  of  centrifugal  machines  ;  draining  by 
[)utting  raelada  into  casks,  tanks,  or  boxes  pierced  with  holes  to 
permit  the  syrup  to  escape  while  the  sugar  remains,  is  still  practiced 
in  sugar  producing  countries ;  conical  moulds  are  also  still  used  for 
the  same  purpose ;  other  and  more  primitive  methods  of  draining 
are  practiced  in  producing  countries  where  the  knowledge  of  sugar 
making  is  crude  and  imperfect. 

Centrifugal  machines  perform  the  work  of  separating  sugar  from 
syrup  with  dispatch,  and  are  indispensable  in  making  as  well  as  in 
refining  sugars,  by  such  aid  the  tedious  process  of  drainage  is 
avoided,  and  separation  accomplished  in  a  few  moments,  the  con- 
centrated mass  of  sugar  and  syrup  is  placed  in  cylindrical  baskets 
finely  perforated,  and  fitted  upon  central  shafts  that  are  made  to  re- 
volve swiftly,  the  rapid  motion  drives  out  the  syrup,  and  leaves  the 
sugar  comparatively  dry  and  pure  in  the  baskets. 

Molasses  obtained  by  draining  raw  sugar,  is  reboiled,  evaporated, 
inspissated,  crystallized,  and  treated  the  same  as  the  first  product  of 
syrup  already  described:  the  raw  sugar  thus  obtained  is  called  mo- 
lasses sugar,  and  is  equal  in  value  to  muscovado  sugar  for  refining 
purposes  ;  the  molasses  of  commerce  is  drained  from  melada  and  is 
often  extremely  rich  in  sugar  crystals. 

Porto  Rico  molasses  is  especially  rich  in  crystals  ot  sugar.  Cu- 
ban and  Porto  Rico  molasses  test  from  48  to  60  in  sugar  crystals. 
The  average  test  of  the  latter  exceeds  54  and  of  the  former  52  de- 
grees in  crystals,  but  it  should  be  remembered  that  during  transit 
and  while  waiting  sale  and  shipment  cr\'stals  of  sugar  are  con- 
stantly forming  in  molasses  drained  from  raelada. 

Molasses  testing  above  55  is  more  valuable  for  reboiling  in  this 
country  to  obtain  the  sugar  than  for  consumption  as  molasses. 
Hence  molasses  boilers  buy  such  molasses  with  avidity,  and  efforts 
have  often  been  made  to  import  syrup  of  sugar  containing  70  to  85 
per  cent,  of  crystals  as  molasses  in  order  to  obtain  the  sugar  by  con- 
version without  paying  proper  duty.  The  ease  with  which  this 
fraud  can  now  be  detected,  and  the  fact  that  when  syrup  of  cane 
sugar  is  found  entered  as  molasses  it  will  be  seized  by  the  Govern- 
ment, renders  the  practice  unprofitable. 

The  introduction  of  vacuum-pan  boilers  varies  the  old  method  of 
making  sugar  at  the  second  or  evaporating  process  as  follows  :  The 
syrup,  having  been  brought  to  the  proper  consistency,  is  run  into 
receivers,  thence  run  through  filter  bags  or  directly  into  subsiders, 
and  from  thence  drawn  into  the  vacuum-pan  as  required.     Sulphur- 


0U8  and  sulphuric  acid,  quicklime,  milk  of  lime  and  sulphurous  gas 
are  used  in  the  manufacture  of  Deraerara  and  Cuban  crystals  for 
the  American  market. 

The  process  is  delicate  but  simply  a  matter  of  skillful  handling. 
If  sulphurous  acid  is  admitted  to  the  boiling  syrup  in  excess  it  not 
only  discolors  the  mass  but  compels  the  free  use  of  lime  to  correct 
the  acidity.  Thus  the  desired  shade  of  discoloration  is  lessened  or 
lost.  Bisulphate  of  lime  is  also  employed  as  a  colorant  for  the 
same  purpose,  while  sulphuric  acid,  muriate  of  tin,  etc.,  are  some- 
times admitted  to  the  syrup  in  the  vacuum-pan  and  in  centrifugals 
to  give  bloom  or  delicate  straw  color  to  yellow  crystals  intended 
for  the  London  market. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  various  articles  employed  to  brighten 
sugars  in  the  vacuum-pan  will,  when  used  in  excess,  darken  the 
crystals.  For  iiistance,  eight  to  ten  quarts  of  diluted  sulphuric  acid 
to  each  ton  of  mass  in  the  pan  when  injected  upon  formed  crystals 
before  the  strike  will  give  bloom  to  the  crystals,  while  the  admis- 
sion of  a  greater  per  cent,  of  the  acid,  or  too  high  a  temperature 
when  boiling,  will  discolor  the  sugar  and  endanger  the  strike  by 
inverting  more  or  less  of  the  crystals. 

More  simple  methods  are  also  extensively  employed  in  Cuba  and 
Demerara  to  color  vacuum  pan  crystals  made  to  test  from  93  to  99° 
in  purity,  but  intended  to  evade  Nos.  10  and  13  of  the  Dutch  stand- 
ard of  our  tariff";  a  favorite  formula  employed  is,  to  every  600  gal- 
lods  of  juice  add  4  to  5  pounds  of  lime  in  the  defecator,  and  again 
use  the  same  quantity  of  lime  in  subsiders  for  dark  sugars,  whereas 
only  one  half  the  quantity  of  lime  is  used  for  light  sugars ;  the  ex- 
cess of  lime  retained  in  the  syrup,  discolors  the  crystals  more  or  less 
throughout,  during  inspissation  and  graining. 

Again,  thoroughly  clarified  cane  juice  is  evaporated  in  triple 
effects  or  in  open  pans,  run  into  subsiders,  and  thence  drawn  into  the 
vacuum  pan  for  finishing;  where  the  highest  grade  of  crystals,  say  95 
to  99°  in  purity  are  required,  and  No.  10  or  13  D.  S.,  the  limit 
of  color,  crystals  are  fully  formed  and,  just  before  the  strike,  the 
proper  percentage  of  molasses  impurities  or  caramel,  or  both,  is 
admitted  to  the  boiling  sugar,  and  the  pure  crystals  are  outwardlv 
colored  to  imitate  raw  sugars  not  above  No.  7-10  or  13  D.  S.  in 
color  as  desired. 

Molasses  carefully  run  into  the  vaccum  pan  at  intervals,  after 
graining  has  progressed  nearly  to  the  desired  striking  point,  pro- 
duces a  molasses  crystal  of  great  purity  from  93  to  97°,  but  not 
above  No.  10  D.  S.  in  color,  when  skillfully  manipulated.  Great 
attention,  excellent  judgment,  and  superior  skill,  are  the  most  es- 
sential elements  in  producing  manufactured  sugar  crystals  of  the 
highest  degree  of  purity,  and  of  the  requisite  color  to  evade  the 
payment  of  the  full  duty  that  would  be  properly  levied  in  this 
country  upon  such  sugars,  if  they  were  not  discolored  for  this 
market  to  imitate  raw  material. 


s 

Unless  tampered  with  at  some  stage  of  sug-ar  making,  properly 
clarified  cane  juice  will  yield  light  yellow  crystals  of  any  desired 
size  in  the  vacuum  pan,  which  equal  14  to  16  J).  S.  in  color;  after 
being  purged  in  the  centrifugals,  these  crystals  will  be  of  a  natural 
color,  equal  to  from  16  to  18  D.  S.,  and  test  from  95  to  99°  in  pur- 
ity; the  duty  on  such  sugars,  when  not  above  16  D.  S.,  would 
be  $3.43f  per  100  lbs.,  and  when  above  IS^o.  16  T>.  S.  in  color,  the 
duty  would  be  $4.06^  per  100  lbs.,  hence  the  various  foreign  methods 
of  discoloring  a  manufactured  article  of  sugar  of  superior  value, 
to  imitate  raw  sugar  material  and  evade  duty. 

Grocer's  sugars  are  no  longer  made  in  Cuba  and  Demerara  for 
this  market ;  such  sugars  would  test  from  88  to  92°  in  purity,  and 
be  about  14  to  16  D.  S.,  in  color,  the  duty  thereon  would  be  $3.43| 
per  100  lbs.  Grocer's  sugars  are  not  prohibited  by  the  tariff,  but  by 
Cuban  and  Demerara  crystals  which  test  from  93  to  99°  in  purity, 
but  although  far  superior  in  ([uality  to  grocer's  sugars,  they  are 
colored  down  to  7,  10  or  13  D.  8.,  and  pay  an  average  of  less  than 
$2.50  per  100  lbs.  duty,  thus  prohibiting  the  importation  of  grocer's 
sugars. 

The  Carlisle  and  kindred  uniform  duty  on  sugar  plans,  whether 
at  one  cent  or  2.40  cents  per  lb.,  are  all  framed  to  legalize  the  im- 
portation of  Demerara  crystals  of  highest  purity,  discolored  to  not 
above  No.  13  D.  S.,  at  the  lowest  rate  of  duty,  to  the  exclusion  of 
raw  sugar  material ;  such  crystals  can  be  washed  in  centrifugals  and 
then  placed  upon  this  market  as  high  grade  grocers  sugars,  with  an 
immense  advantage  of  duty  evaded,  to  enrich  the  manipulators, 
such  sharp  tricks  in  legislation  become  dangerous  and  destructive 
to  American  industries  and  revenue,  in  practice. 

Clearly,  if  there  were  no  Dutch  Standard  of  color  in  our  tariff 
laws  to  evade,  discolored  vaccum-pan  crystals  would  be  unknown, 
and  if  Congress  will  authorize  the  use  of  the  Polariscope  and  grind- 
ing the  sugar,  as  adjuncts  to  the  Dutch  standard  for  levying  duty, 
discolored  crystals  will  no  longer  surreptitiously  flood  this  market 
to  the  detriment  of  every  American  industry  and  interest  connected 
with  commerce,  consumption,  production,  refining,  and  revenue,  in 
their  relations  to  the  Sugar  Question. 

Artificial  methods  of  finishing  sugars  are  constantly  practiced  in 
sugar  producing  countries  contiguous  to  the  United  States,  to  evade 
the  color  standard  of  our  sugar  tariff,  and  to  control  the  market  and 
sugar  industries  of  this  country ;  the  No.  13  D.  S.  Sugar  Bill,  and 
other  uniform  duty  plans,  are  efforts  of  foreign  sugar  producers  in 
neighboring  countries  and  their  American  allies,  to  secure  a  sugar 
tariff  admitting  semi-refined  cr^^stals  as  raw  material,  in  order  to 
prohibit  the  latter,  control  our  market,  destroy  our  sugar  industries, 
and  then  oppress  consumers. 

The  production  of  raw  sugar  in  foreign  countries  injures  no 
American  sugar  interest  or  industry ;  we  depend  upon  foreign  pro- 


ducers  for  an  adequate  supply  of  raw  material  while  home  produc- 
tion is  advancing,  but  the  advancement  of  raw  sugars  beyond  their 
normal  condition,  by  the  foreign  producer  with  his  coolie  and  slave 
labor  adjuncts  and  devices  of  manufacture  to  evade  our  revenue 
laws,  purposes  the  destruction  of  American  producing  and  refining 
industries;  these  mastered,  the  cost  of  sugar  to  consumers  will 
be  enhanced  by  foreign  producers,  and  American  competition  be- 
come suicidal.   ' 

Briefly  stated,  the  refining  process  by  boiling,  evaporating,  in- 
spissating and  graining  cane  syrup  in  vacuum  pans,  coloring  the 
crystals,  and  purging  the  strike  in  centrifugals,  has  come  to  be  regu- 
larly pursued  in  the  principal  sugar  producing  countries  contiguous 
to  the  United  States ;  in  Demerara  |  and  in  Cuba  and  the  West 
Indies  f  of  the  sugar  is  thus  made ;  nothing  but  the  necessity  of 
conforming  to  the  color  standard  of  our  tariff,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
duty  on  refined  sugar,  prevents  Cuban  and  Deraerara  producers 
from  making  their  otherwise  refined  products  of  natural  color  from 
15  to  20  Dutch  Standard. 

These  abuses  of  our  revenue  laws  by  sugar  producers  in  neigh- 
boring countries,  have  attained  great  magnitude;  having  subtly 
undermined  our  sugar  producing  and  refining  industries,  and  pre- 
pared the  way  for  their  destruction  before  creating  public  alarm  ; 
suspicions  of  foul  play  in  years  past,  led  the  writer  to  rigidly  inves- 
tigate and  publicly  expose  the  methods  of  foreign  sugar  making 
and  duty  evasions,  by  which  this  Nation  has  long  been  victimized. 

These  exposures  have  already  produced  remarkably  healthful, 
and  mostly  voluntary  changes  in  the  classification  of  sugars  for  duty, 
and  consequent  higher  rates  of  duty  and  increase  of  revenue  during 
the  fiscal  years  ended  June  30,  1880-1881,  as  will  be  seen  in  the 
following  comparative  table  of  classifications  for  duty  of  sugars,  ex- 
clusive of  melada,  entered  into  consumption  during  the  past  six 
jears,  1876  to  1881  inclusive  : 


1 

. 

. 

1 

c:  O  Ct  r-  l_ 

-tr 

^       ir 

00         CO 

■^      CI    1  ^- 

I  -  ^   C-   —   ^  ^ 

'-?■         C 

1.0  St  J^  S  ^  c 

>      o       c    1  o 

>» 

rr* 

C<.    C   ^7  C  M  C 

t- 

icScScS 

CO         to         00 

-—  '^  r?  u-  71  r- 

x       oc 

00         00         rt 

G 

otro'c^ 

t: 

r;- 

o 

OD  CO  ^ 

C5,        CO         CO, 

icT              crT 

r-t  I— 1 

« 

co 

«i>CO 

■* 

■* 

1 

^ 

1       1 

t-  ct  0^  1— '  r-i  ci; 

c 

<N 

CI 

■^  t^  to  CO  00  c 
^  C  t-CJ  CO  r 

O        00    U        1 

Ci  GO  O  CO  Ci  C 

t-      oc 

op        to        -^ 

« 

2 

■^  2o^*o^oc^^^«: 

o_      ■« 

lO 

• 

d 

^^.s^^*^-'"     ^ 

c 

CO,         *T,          [ 

oc 

o"t>rcr:c"'c"<:; 

0* 

oT 

3 

to  w  -*'  -M         r- 

to         CC 

OD 

X 

OD 

C^  rH  T«  ;0 

O         rt     i    00         1 

> 

J 

c^ 

CO 

o" 

> 

C0_^Cl_O^ 

1^        t-         ■* 

ef             do" 

rt 

S" 

'" 

oc 

S~ 

00 

r  ! 

(N  O  •*  00  CO  -^ 

^ 

c;:: 

X 

■^  T-^  r-  t-0  r-i  c 

t-           CC 

CO 

00  t^  t-  1-t  o  c- 

t- 

oc 

>. 

00  oc  ^- r-  ■*!  c- 

CK         -+ 

>-. 

OC  '~^^„^^'~t.R.'^ 

"*. 

,  •  -^  *  CI  C-l  CI  — 

00         cr 

■^  l^  C5  :d  ^  r—  — 

'y  cr  —  t^  t--  CI  GC 

"       CO        -* 

t-      c 

e  CI  tC  C:  CC  rt  r- 

t-      0- 

s 

iC 

2  s: -S-  t-^Cl 

(S 

c-r    cc 

cT 

05 

Or-Trfcrr-r 

oi'   '  c 

'^^ 

(^ss- 

00 

^iSi;i 

O" 

'" 

lo 

& 

00 

oc_ 

^ 

^ 

^ 

'"' 

i 

r-  C5  cc  (>J  t-  c* 

c       -* 

Tf 

Tji  t-O  to  t-c£ 

to       c 

s 

ODC^  O  CO  »0-* 

to  t;;C»  O  rt  C 

0 

O^C^'^^O  t-^^ 

CO        c 

0^ 

c 

CO 

^. 

^ 

"e" 

_J^* 

t^OO'rhC^-^ 

tT    ''■ 

c^ 

X'  —  X  ic  "  *" 

Ti*  ^  =  00 

O        0- 

CO 

c- 

o 

O  o  c: 

r^         CC 

~^ 

^  ir"  ^f 

o 

cc-o'rt" 

— 

-^•^ 

«%co 

CO 

00 

*■" 

r-'  O  0?  CO  Ol  C 

c;      t- 

^ 

rt  CI  N  CI  CO  C 

^ 

ro 

CC         0- 

•*  rt  =;  CI  to  c 

CO        c 

CO 

b> 

d 

oT     r 

cf 

9 

d 

to  oc  CI  C)  -!<  tr 

T^'^^lo'~ooo6'^- 

00_        OC 
to"        CC 

'     tx 

& 

« 

CI  O  00  rt      J 

to 

ce 

S^J^CC  C^l 

00        c 

C3 

CO"!*  O  rt 

c. 

c 

c 

(ts 

> 

t^cTTjT 

co" 

ae 

> 

rt'cf  co' 

I~^        r- 

Qo" 

w 

CO  C<l 

r- 

iiN 

CC 

«4 

¥f 

»C  1-H  O  O  t-  c 

•^      ^ 

00 

O  00  00  '^  Ci  c 

5    5 

<-.  if:  m  Cit^-^ 

>. 

C-.  Jr-  t-  O  00  r- 

c 

>. 

,_/  X  ■-•  CO'  rH  -^^  X 

ot 

»  ^0,O^CC  tO__r- 

__        05         0- 

^  :rrr~r^"-^'~(>q"c 

oc 

t;  cot^Smccx 

c 

;^  Tt'  1— 1  CI  CO  r:  cf 

*^ 

p*  C:  ^  C3  to  ^-  r- 

c 

t- 

C  c-;^rt,^^ic^ 

c-       c; 

c 

^  C:  CI  t^  01 

CI         1- 

c^ 

5 

f— 

l-*" 

ce 

cf        0" 

to"        1 

C^  lO  o  X   ' 

•rt 

3 

^  S  ci  ~ 

c 

0- 

CI         1 

cr 

''J^ 

t-*^ 

& 

'* 

1 

-- 

-- 

~ 

"" 

>r  (M  cs  c^  r-  a 

-* 

^ 

CC  to  t-  I~- rt  ,- 

t^         CC 

CO 

■*  C-l  -*  o  O  -: 

o      »r 

Ir-CO  O  O  O  C 

0-.      c 

0 

o      r- 

■# 

t>. 

d  CO  CO  CC  00  or 

00 

>•. 

■^x'^C-ft^w^r- 

C^ 

oo" 

CC  m  (=;■  'C 

■5 

•C  -M  O  O- 1" 

(> 

3 

00  00  C  rt 

r- 

CC 

a 

CC 

X 

-r^ 

■*'_,t-^C_ 

5 

t- 

c. 

t-                 T— 

t- 

c- 

c- 

CO 

«i  ' 

i^ 

00  00  O  O  lO  0- 

c 

^ 

p. 

I-  to  Ol  t-  o  ?■ 

^ 

t. 

Tf  t~C  CO  -*  c 

X 

c5 

t-  r-  o  CI  «  oc 

0- 

CC 

d 

C:  t~r-i  QOO  C 

00 

d 

■^  O  X  —   rt  d 

c- 

t- 

CC 

<e 

■*'co  ?ooccc"o 

c 

Si 

ot 

00 

& 

^ 

CI  rt  rt  CI 

0* 

JS 

CO  S  >e  S 

X 

f. 

0- 

c 

oe 

o'uj'cT 

Cr 

1^ 

mt 

tO 

F^ 

fM  CO 

CC 

CJ  CI 

CC 

«© 

f^ 

•*  t~  00  1>)  00  'i 

iC 

•^ 

m 

CI  O  CC  O  rt  to 

CO 

1- 

CO 

CI  00  CO  CO  lO  I- 

■^ 

W 

00  m  to  rt  CI  CI 

10 

^ 

^ 

^  QO^O  OO^t-^-TjH^C 

c 

^ 

^  rt  to  ■*  rt  CI  ^ 

0 

0- 

CO 

*«  C>f  to  t^t-^r-T-rt 

C: 

cf 

-B  rt'-^'cc  CO  o'c: 

^' 

-t.a 

S(N  00  O  (M  r-C- 

CO 

c 

S^'-.'-.-.O, 

X 

1> 

tc 

c 

£  00  S  to  Ti<  "    "" 

cS 

(« 

O  ■«•  C:  C  -O  r-( 

O  O'rtio' 

oc 

c: 

3 

ft^ggs 

to 

<^§S" 

c; 

00 

^ 

CC, 

C 

cc_ 

r- 

'"' 

'" 

" 

■7 

^" 

' 

3 

^  CO  CO  O! 

■^  cr   «    C 

1 

^ 

■  r/J  aD  CC 
K   .    .    . 

"coccc  = 

- 

= 

4? 

O  rH  r-  C-1  .: 

"^  d  d  c  J 

^ 

- 

= 

for 
Yd.. 
.10 

0.1 

o.  1 
0.  2 

c 

; 

I 

w^'^  <B  CD  «  a 

^ 

^ 

V.  a      a)  aj  0,1  a 

,c 

; 

IIS|ssc 

"■      ci 

D 

g  5  «  >  t-  !-X 
.S-5  ;-  o  o  Ol: 
^  X  C  X  .D  .c  '^ 

"^         OJ 
T3 

c; 

d 

~-   ^.C   cS  c«  cS  — 
s:~  **;  -^*^  c 

!= 

s 

,. 

.^  -.£  o:  s  c:t: 

: 

"3 

s 

B  is  -»^   O   C  O   r- 

C 

K  -^i  *i  O  C   O  a 

C 

_ 

« 

Sampled 
No.  7  Du 
7  and  no 
10  and  n 
13  and  n 
1()  and  n 

•20    lonf 

s 

C 

c 

C3 

I 

Sampled  i 
No.  7  Dn 
7  and  no 
10  and  n 
13  and  n 
1(1  and  n 

9(1    Inof 

b 

0  i 

-a 
s 

Oi 

t 

J 

^ 

a 

:■• 

= 

> 

;- 

a 

C3 

?  6  6  6  6  c 

T 

J 

9  6  6  6  6  c 

;- 

eft 

C 

•O     QJ     ^     ^      QJ      Q. 

^ 

3; 

^ 

r 

? 

J  (P  aj  aj  o  a 

J 

c 

5 

<^      >     >      >     >     > 

C 

*>>;.>  p. 

C 

c 

-ti  o  o  o  o  c 

c 

-4-  o  o  o  o  c 

&- 

c.;:^.^j:.c 

"C 

0.£;^j0.q.^ 

c  a:  c!  cs  c;  c 

c* 

C  cS  cS  «  OS  a 

— 

c 

-^ 

«' 

<-* 

^ 

1 

< 

-';-<-' 

- 

" 

1 

-3<N         10 

S  QO"         QtT 

'goo     S5 


^2 


00  00 


o 


CO    E 


«    O 

S  '- 


2^". 


11 

The  assumption  of  Treasury  Agents  that  the  new  methods  of 
sampling  and  dry  testing  sugars,  enforced  by  Treasury  circulars  of 
July  19  and  September  2, 1879,  have  increased  the  revenue,  is  simply 
absurd  ;  such  methods  change  the  texture  of  the  merchandise  and 
are  illegal,  irrational,  and  oppressive;  they  have  only  led  to  expen- 
sive and  useless  litigation,  with  the  certainty  of  refunding  duty  thus 
obtained  by  force  instead  of  law  ;  higher  duties  are  the  inevitable 
result  of  the  exposures  referred  to  above. 

Sugar  cane  is  undoubtedly  an  indigenous  product  of  China  and 
India,  by  transition  from  whence  its  cultivation  spread  to  Arabia, 
and  later  to  tropical  and  semi-tropical  countries,  in  many  of  which 
it  now  constitutes  the  principal  source  of  agricultural  prosperity, 
especially  so  in  Cuba,  Porto  Rico,  Demerara  and  other  dependen- 
cies of  Great  Britain,  France,  Holland,  and  Spain,  and  in  the  Ha- 
waiian and  other  islands  of  the  Pacific  ocean.  Egypt,  Mexico,  and 
Brazil  are  sugar  producing  countries,  and  prodigious  quantities  of 
cane  sugars  are  produced  in  India  and  in  China. 

The  sugar  yield  from  cane  varies  according  to  climate,  culture, 
and  crop  handling.  In  Demerara,  Cuba,  Hawaii,  Mauritius,  and 
other  favorable  locations,  when  carefully  cultivated,  from  60  to  70 
tons  of  cane  have  been  raised  to  the  acre,  and  from  5  to  6  tons  of 
raw  sugar  per  acre  obtained  therefrom.  Careless  culture  often  re- 
duces the  yield  of  sugar,  exclusive  of  molasses,  to  less  than  a  ton  to 
the  acre,  but  under  proper  cultivation  and  skillful  handling  an 
average  of  three  tons  of  raw  sugar  to  the  acre  of  cane,  exclusive  of 
molasses,  would  be  obtained  in  foreign  cane  sugar  producing  countries. 

Southern  portions  of  the  United  States  produce  sugar  cane.  In 
Louisiana,  American  enterprise  and  skill  have  made  the  cultivation 
of  sugar  cane  and  sugar  making  its  chief  source  of  prosperity  and 
wealth,  and,  although  the  climate  is  less  favorable  than  in  Cuba, 
sugar  production  constitutes  its  principal  industry.  The  sugar  pro- 
ducing industries  of  Louisiana  and  other  States,  together  with  our 
refining  industries,  demand  the  maintenance  of  the  same  fostering 
governmental  protection  that  is  accorded  to  the  cotton,  coal,  iron, 
wheat,  wool  and  other  prominent  producing  and  manufacturing  in- 
dustries of  this  country. 

Genuine  and  authentic  information  gathered  by  the  writer  from 
sugar  producing  countries,  indicates  that  the  annual  cane  sugar  crop 
of  the  world  exceeds  4,900,000  tons,  and  is  produced  approxi- 
mately, as  follows : 

British  India,  tons 1,500,000     Manilla,  Phillipine  Islands 135,000 

China,  Hong  Kong,  etc .1,000,000     Louisiana,  Texas,  etc 125,000 

Cuba  and  Spanish  poss 750,000     Egyptian    Provinces 75,000 

Br.  W.  I.,  Demerara,  etc 250,000     Peru,  S.   A 75,000 

Dutch  India,  Java,  etc 250,000     Hawaiian     Islands 45,000 

French   W.  I.,  Guiana,  etc 175,000     Mexico 35,000 

Brazilian     Empire 175,000     All  other  countries 160,000 

Mauritius,  Pieunion,  etc. 150,000  

Total  cane  and  sugar,  tons 4,900,000 


12 

Added  to  the  cane  sugar  crop  of  1881  will  be  the  beet  sugar 
crop  of  Europe,  about  1,700,000  tons,  and  minor  crops  of  Maple, 
Palm,  Beet,  and  Sorghum  Sugars  in  this  and  other  countries,  esti- 
mated at  100,000  ton's. 

Total  known  and  estimated  sugar  crop  of  1881  : 

Canesugar 4,900,000  tons.     Maple,  sorghum,  etc 100,000  tons. 

Beet  sugar,  Europe. 1,700,000  tons.  

Total   sugar  crop 6,700,000  tons. 

Of  this  immense  sugar  crop,  the  people  of  this  country  now  con- 
sume annually  more  than  1,000,000  tons  of  2,240  lbs.  the  ton. 
Sugars  were  consumed  in  this  county  in  the  fiscal  year  ended  June 
30,  1881,  as  follows  : 

Dutiable  sugars  entered  into   consumption 1,869,173,897  lbs. 

Dutiable  melada      "  "  "  20,534,846    " 

Hawaiian  sugars      "  "  "  76,909,207    " 

Total  imported  dutiable  and  free  sugars  consumed 1,966,617,9.50  lbs. 

Add  domestic  cane  sugars,  Louisiana,  Texas,  etc 200,000,000    " 

Maple,  beet,  and  sorghum  sugars 75,000,000    " 


Annual  consumption  in  theUnited  States 2,241,617,950  lbs 

Total  consumption  of  sugar  in  the  United  States,  per  capita,  in  1881,  44.83  lbs. 

England  abolished  the  duty  on  sugar  in  1874,  with  an  annual 
consumption  of  59.40  lbs.  per  capita;  in  1876  England  consumed 
only  58.39  lbs.  per  capita,  and  in  1877  only  56.66  lbs.  per  capita ;  the 
normal  increase  of  consumption  in  England  since  1874,  has  been 
from  59.40  lbs.  in  1874  to  62.25  lbs.  per  capita  in  1879-1880,  or  only 
2.85  lbs.  per  capita  since  1874,  when  duty  on  sugar  was  abolished. 

A  reduction  of  duty  to  one  cent  per  pound,  or  even  the  abolition 
of  duty  on  sugar,  cannot  materially  increase  consumption  in  this 
country  more  than  in  England,  simply  because  the  minimum  foreign 
cost  of  producing  has  been  reached,  and  such  a  course  would  only 
enhance  prices  in  producing  countries,  in  the  ratio  of  any  reduction 
of  duty. 

The  more  refined  tastes  and  advanced  requirements  of  American 
consumers,  now  demand  that  imported  sugars  shall  be  refined  in 
this  country.  We  refine  raw  sugars  for  half  the  cost  of  refining 
them  in  foreign  producing  countries,  aside  from  the  manifold  profits 
which  Cuban  and  Demerara  crystal  makers  and  colorers  obtain  from 
us,  by  semi-refining  raw  sugars  and  evading  duty. 

American  refiners  also  accurately  comprehend  the  varied  wants 
of  the  poor  and  the  rich,  and  can  currently  provide  for  them  pro 
rata  to  the  ability  of  the  diflerent  classes  to  satisty  their  food  ne- 
cessities, and  gratify  their  appetites  for  pure  and  wholesome  sugar 
food.     Inasmuch  as  Cuba  seems  bound  to  semi-refine  her  raw  sugars, 


13 

these  indispensible  national  requirenients  can  only  be  met  by  home 
production,  and  by  drawing  supplies  of  raw  sugar  material  from 
remote  sugar  producing  countries,  and  by  levying  duty  thereon  pro 
rata  to  their  actual  foreign  market  value  in  the  sugar  producing 
countries  of  their  purchase  and  shipment. 

Furthermore,  the  encouragement  of  importations  of  raw  sugar 
material  from  remote  sugar  producing  countries,  is  a  most  healthful 
means  of  increasing  our  commerce  with  those  countries,  including 
exports  of  domestic  merchandise  thereto ;  payments  for  raw  sugar 
material  purchased  in  remote  countries  may  be  made  in  American 
merchandise ;  no  such  advantage  is  afibrdecl  us  in  our  purchases  of 
sugar  from  Cuba  and  other  Spanish  possessions. 

Comparing  the  importations  of  sugar  and  melada  from  Cuba 
and  Spanish  possessions,  with  those  from  all  other  countries  in 
the  fiscal  years  ended  June  30, 1879,  1880,  1881,  the  following  ex- 
hibit, taken  with  the  previous  tabular  grouping  of  sugar  producing 
countries,  in  most  of  which  only  raw  sugar  material  is  produced, 
furnishes  matter  for  the  consideration  of  Congress,  consumers  and 
taxpayers,  producers  and  refiners. 

Sugar  and  melada  importations,  invoice  entries  from  Cuba  and 
Spanish  possessions,  and  from  all  other  countries,  including  Hawaii, 
in  the  fiscal  years  ended  June  30, 1879,  1880, 1881 : 


1879.     Imports. 

Pounds. 

Value. 

1880.  Pounds. 

Value. 

1881.  Pounds. 

Value. 

Cuba  and  Spanish  Poss 

From  all  other  Countries 

1,522,432,223 
311,933,613 

159,150,935 
12,927,753 

1,339,271,157 

490,029,527 

$58,444,984 

21,591,884 

1,308,948,660 
560,889,298 

160,173,853 
21,559,103 

Total  Importations 

1,834,365,836 

172,078,688;     1,829,300,684|S80,036,868 

i                            i 

1,869,837,958 

581,732,956 

Average  foreign  cost  of  imported  sugars  and  melada  per  100  lbs., 
according  to  declared  or  invoice  values  in  1879,  1880,  and  1881 : 

1879.  1880.  1881. 

Cuba  and  Spanish  possessions $3.88  $4.37  $4.60 

Hawaiian  sugar  duty  free 6.74  6.72  6.40 

All  other  countries 3.74  4.07  3.84 

Paying  Cuba,  Demerara,  and  the  West  Indies,  through  American 
agents,  extra  prices  for  sugars  doctored  to  evade  our  tariflf',  and  leg- 
islating a  uniform  duty  on  sugar  to  further  enrich  them,  while  re- 
mote sugar  producing  countries  are  anxious  to  suppl}'  us  far 
cheaper  with  an  abundance  of  the  raw  sugar  material  we  require, 
and  will  gladly  take  American  merchandise  in  payment  therefor, 
neither  conduces  to  our  industrial  prosperity  nor  to  the  welfare  of 
consumers,  and  commerce  with  remote  countries. 


SECTION  SECOND. 


Hawaiian  Sugars  versus  Dutiable  Sugars— Pernicious  Results 
of  the  Reciprocity  Treaty — Impending  Dangers  of  An- 
nexation— As  Related  to  Consumption  and  Commerce, 
American  Industries  and  Revenue. 


The  results  of  admitting  sugars  from  the  Hawaiian  Islands  duty 
free,  while  all  other  imported  sugars  are  subject  to  duty,  present  an 
interesting  exhibit  of  a  condition  analagous  to  that  of  reducing  the 
present  duty  on  foreign  made  crystals  or  centrifugal  sugars,  and  in- 
creasing the  duty  on  raw  sugar  material,  as  proposed  by  advocates 
of  a  uniform  one  cent  or  more  per  lb.  sugar  plan,  and  the  Carlisle 
Sugar  Bill. 

tinder  the  Hawaiian  Reciprocit}^  Treaty,  the  Sandwich  Islands 
have  ceased  to  send  low  grade  sugars  to  this  country;  their  cane 
juice  is  now  mostly  manufactured  into  high  grades  of  semi-refined 
sugars  for  this  market;  the  Hawaiian  Treaty  deprives  us  of  low 
grade  raw  sugars,  of  the  duty  from  the  higher  grades  the  Islands 
now  send  us  at  enhanced  prices,  and  of  the  industry  thus  transferred 
from  this  country  to  Hawaii. 

This  process  of  prohibition  of  raw  sugar  material,  is  also  prac- 
ticed in  Cuba  and  Spanish  possessions,  and  in  Demerara  and  the 
West  Indies,  with  dutiable  sugars,  by  coloring  crystals  in  making 
sugars  for  this  market,  to  evade  duty;  practices  which  Carlisle's 
Bitl,  the  No.  16  plan,  the  No.  13  D.  S.  and  85  test  bill,  and  the  one 
cent  per  lb.  duty  plan,  are  simply  designed  to  legalize;  the  follow- 
ing tables  present  the  facts  in  relation  to  our  losses  by  the  Recipro- 
city Treaty. 

Table  No.  1. — Dutiable  Hawaiian  Sugars  entered  into  consumption  in  the  fiscal  years 
ended  June  30,  1874,  1675,  1876,  prior  to  the  Keciprocity  Treaty  admitting  Ha- 
waiian Sugars  Duty  Free : 


XT                              Dutiable                -rj  , 
^'''''                        Sugars.         .         ^^'"«- 

Cost 
per  lb. 

Average  Grade. 

1874 

1875 

1876 

Pounds.        !       Dollars. 

13,675,674     ,           740,786 
17,888,000     1           938,676 
20,978,374             1,051,987 

Cents. 

5.45 
5.24 
5.01 

No.  7  to  10  D.  S. 
No.  7  to  10  D.  S. 
No.  7  to  10  D.  S. 

Total 

62,442,048            2,731,449 

Av.  5.2 

Av.  7  to  10  D.  S. 

15 


Table  No.  2. — Hawaiian  Sugars  entered  into  consumption  free  of  duty  in  the  fiscal 
years  ended  June  30,  1877,  1878,'1879,  1880,  under  the  Keciprocity  Treaty  ad- 
nytting  Hawaiian  Sugars  Duty  Free: 


Year. 


Free  Sugars. 


Value. 


Cost 
per  R). 


Average  Grade. 


1877 

1878 

1879 

1880 

Total 


Pounds. 

30,685,142 
30,368,328 
41,693,069 
61,556,324 


Dollars. 

2,112,270 
2,274,430 
2,811,192 
4,135,486 


Cents. 

6.88 
7.49 
6.74 
6.72 


Above  No.  13  D.  S. 
Above  No.  14  D.  S. 
Above  No.  13  D.  S. 
Above  No.  13  D.  S. 


164,302,863 


11,333,378     'Av.  6.90   About  No.  14  D.  S. 


The  Keciprocity  Treaty  deprived  us  of  Hawaiian  low  grade  sugars 
in  a  single  year,  and  increased  the  foreign  cost  of  Hawaiian  sugars 
from  5  cents  per  pound  in  1876  to  6.88  cents  per  pound  in  1877  or 
$1.88  per  100  pounds.  The  average  cost  of  Hawaiian  sugars  dur- 
ing 1874,  1875  and  1876,  when  duty  was  levied  thereon,  was  $5.20 
per  100  pounds,  and  their  average  cost  during  1877,  1878,  1879  and 
1880,  under  the  Reciprocity  Treaty,  was  $6.90  per  100  pounds,  or 
$1.70  per  100  pounds  against  American  consumers,  to  which  must 
be  added  the  loss  of  duty  on  164,302,863  pounds  of  Hawaiian  sugars 
consumed  in  1877,  1878,  1879  and  1880,  valued  at  $11,338,378, 
amounting  to  about  62.50  per  cent  of  their  value,  or  $7,083,361. 

The  increased  cost  of  Hawaiian  sugars  and  the  exclusion  of  low 
grades  of  Hawaiian  sugars  are  significant  facts.  The  consumption 
of  dutiable  Hawaiian  sugars  imported  in  the  fiscal  year  ended  June 
30,  1868,  was  as  follows  : 


Year. 
1868 


Sugars. 
18,241,142  lbs. 


Value. 
.^956, 909 


Cost  per  lb. 
5.24  cts. 


Average  Grade. 
No.  7  to  10  D.  S. 


This  exhibit  for  1868  coincides  with  the  exhibit  for  1874,  1875 
and  1876,  as  presented  above,  and  agrees  substantially  with  the  in- 
tervening years,  1869  to  1873  inclusive,  as  regards  price  and  grade. 

During  four  years,  1868,  1874,  1875  and  1876,  the  largest  quan- 
tity of  sugar  entered  for  consumption  from  the  Hawaiian  Islands 
was  in  1876,  the  next  in  1868,  the  next  in  1875  and  the  smallest 
quantity  imported  was  in  1874.  Total  for  the  four  years,  70,683,- 
190  pounds,  or  an  average  of  17,670,797  pounds  per  year,  costing 
only  $5.20  per  100  pounds. 

No  sooner  were  Hawaiian  sugars  admitted  duty  free  than  we  re- 
ceived, in  1877,  30,685,142  pounds  of  Hawaiian  sugars  of  an  aver- 
age grade  above  No.  13  D.  S.  costing  6.88  cents  per  pound  against 
20,978,374  pounds  of  dutiable  sugars  received  in  1876,  of  an  aver- 
age grade  No.  7  to  10  J).  S.,  costing  only  5.01  cents  per  pound. 


16 

In  the  years  1877,  1878, 1879,  1880,  under  the  Reciprocity  Treaty, 
we  find  the  Hawaiians  sending  us  164,302,863  pounds  of  sugar,  in 
color  above  No.  13  D.  S.,  costing  in  Hawaii  $6.90  per  100  lbs ;  an 
annual  average  of  41,075,716  pounds  under  the  treaty,  against 
52,442,048  pounds  of  sugar  averaging  7  to  10  D.  S.,  and  costing 
$5.20.  per  100  lbs.,  imported  from  the  Hawaiian  Islands  in  the  three 
years,  1874,  1875,  1876.  prior  to  the  Reciprocity  Treaty;  an  annual 
average  of  only  17,480,682  pounds. 

Under  the  Reciprocity  Treaty  we  can  no  longer  obtain  the  low 
grade  raw  sugar  material  formerly  produced  in  the  Sandwich 
Islands,  which  we  did  obtain  prior  to  said  treaty ;  a  similar  condi- 
tion in  regard  to  dutiable  sugars  must  inevitably  follow  the  adop- 
tion of  any  uniform  specific  duty  on  sugar,  whether  to  No.  10,  No.  18, 
No.  16,  D.  S.,  or  on  all  sugars,  because  the  industry  of  semi-refining 
abroad  is  encouraged  and  protected  by  any  uniform  tariff,  just  as 
by  admitting  Hawaiian  sugars  duty  free,  the  grades  thereof  have 
been  raised  and  raw  material  prohibited. 

Table  No.  3. — Classifications  of  Hawaiian  Sugars  entered   into  consumption   in  the 
fiscal  years  ended  June  30,  1878,  1879,  1880  under  the  Dutch  standard  : 

Classified  D.  S.                                1878.                          1879.  1880. 

Pounds.                      Pounds.  Pounds. 

Above  No.  7  not  above  No.  10 2,437,920                   8,174,146  7,793,349 

Above  No.  10  not  above  No.  13--_     10,805,283  16,615,686  28,416,596 

Above  No.  13  not  above  No.  16-_-     12,227,780  15,670,564  23,868,886 

Above  No.  16  not  above  No.  20---       4,897,345                   1,232,673  1,477,493 

Total  consumed 30,368,328  '41,693,069  61,556,324 

Table  No.  1  shows  that  prior  to  the  Reciprocity  Treaty,  sugars  en- 
tered for  consumption  from  Hawaii  were  officially  classified  for  duty 
as  averaging  about  No.  8  D.  S.  in  color,  and  cost  $5.20  per  100  lbs. 
in  the  market  of  production. 

Table  No.  2  shows  that,  since  the  enforcement  of  the  treaty,  the 
average  classifications  of  free  sugars  were  in  1877, 1878, 1879,  1880, 
above  No.  13  D.  S.  in  color,  and  their  average  foreign  cost  $6.90  per 
100  lbs;  thus  the  industry  represented  by  $1.70  per  100  lbs.  in- 
creased foreign  cost  of  free  sugars  amounting  in  the  four  years 
named  to  $2,793,148  was  diverted  from  this  country  to  Hav^aii,  in 
addition  to  the  duty  lost  by  the  Reciprocity  Treaty. 

In  plain  language,  during  the  fiscal  years  1878,  1879,  1880  the 
people  of  this  country  consumed  Hawaiian  sugars  to  the  amount  of 
$9,221,108;  paying  $2.55  per  100  lbs.  more  than  sugars  cost  us  in 
all  other  cane  sugar  producing  countries,  besides  losing  $5,753,191, 
duty  on  sugars  imported  duty  free  from  Hawaii  in  the  years  named, 
while  we  could  only  sell  $5,957,130  worth  of  domestic  merchandise 
to  Hawaiians  in  the  same  period  of  time. 

The  account  stands  as  follows  for  the  three  fiscal  years  ended  June 
30,  1878, 1879,  1880,  as  regards  the  quantity  and  value  of  Hawaiian 


17 

sugars  consumed,  duty  thereon  lost  at  62.50  per  cent,  ad  valorem, 
and  total  domestic  merchandise  exported  to  Hawaii  under  the  treaty 
in  the  years  named  : 

y                                         Hawaiian  Foreign  Duty  Dorn.  Mdse. 

Sugars.  Value.  Lost.  to  Hawaii. 

1878 30,368,328  lbs.  |2,274,430  $1,421,518  $1,683,446 

1879 41,693,069  lbs.  2,811,192  1,756,99.5  2,288,178 

1880 61,556,324  lbs.  4,135,486  2,574,678  1,985,506 

Total 133,617,721  lbs.         $9,221,108        $5,753,191         $5,957,130 

Average  price  paid  for  sugar  in  Hawaii,  three  years,  per  100  lbs.,  $6.90. 
Average  price  paid  for  sugar  in  other  countries,  1880,  per  100  lbs.,  $4.20. 

In  three  years,  1878,  1879,  1880,  we  thus  threw  away  $5,753,191 
sugar  duty,  paid  $2.70  per  100  lbs.  extra  price  for  sugars,  and  paid 
a  cash  balance  over  and  above  our  $5,957,130  exports  of  merchan- 
dise to  Hawaii  of  $3,263,978  for  the  single  article  of  sugar ;  the  loss 
of  duty  on  Hawaiian  sugars  in  1881  also  largely  exceeds  the  value 
of  our  exports  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  as  I  shall  presently  prove, 
while  the  importation  of  Hawaiian  sugars,  duty  free,  only  serves  to 
injure  home  production  and  enhance  the  cost  of  refined  sugars  to 
consumers  in  California  and  sections  of  country  contiguous  to  our 
Pacific  coast. 

The  temptation  to  buy  low  grade  raw  sugars  in  China,  Hong 
Kong,  and  adjacent  countries,  and  land  them  at  Hawaii  to  be 
clayed  or  semi-refined  in  vacuum-pans  and  re-shipped  thence  to  this 
country  as  Hawaiian  sugars,  duty  free,  is  not  only  seemingly  irre- 
sistible, but  the  opportunity  is  supplied  by  the  reciprocity  treaty 
between  the  United  States  and  the  Kingdom  of  Hawaii. 

Hon.  James  M.  Comly,  U.  S.  Minister  at  Honolulu,  says  : 

"While  (1880)  the  Ilawaiians  have  exported  large  quantities  of 
rice  to  us,  paying  no  duty,  they  have  imported  and  bonded  1,716,- 
160  pounds  of  an  inferior  article  for  use  on  the  plantations.  Owino- 
to  representations  from  this  legation,  producers  of  Hawaiian  rice 
are  required  to  authenticate  its  nativity  previous  to  exporting  it  to 
the  United  States  as  Hawaiian  product."  China  figures  largely  in 
Hawaiian  commerce,  and  sugar  presents  far  greater  speculative 
allurements  than  rice,  while  the  Heciprocity  Treaty  and  the  King- 
dom of  Hawaii  furnish  a  medium  for  illicit  sugar  traffic  with  this 
country. 

Sheltered  by  the  treaty,  Hawaiian  sugar  producers  not  only 
manufacture  their  entire  sugar  product  into  grades  averaging  above 
No.  13  T>.  S.  for  this  market,  but  mysteriously  supply  themselves 
with  a  large  amount  of  raw  sugar  material  in  excess  of  local  pro- 
duction hitherto  claimed.  China  and  Manilla  sugars  might  readily 
be  imported  and  manufactured  into  higher  grades  for  shipment  to 
the  Pacific  coast,  duty  free.  Such  practices  would  quickly  be  pre- 
vented if  Hawaiian  sugars  were  made  dutiable. 


18 

Extend  the  Hawaiian  treaty  to  all  foreign  sugar  producing  coun- 
tries, or  even  the  uniform  duty  methods,  and  the  supply  of  low  grade 
raw  sugars  would  rapidly  decrease,  which  would  increase  the 
foreign  value  of  raw  material,  because  all  raw  material  would  be 
consumed  in  the  foreign  manufacture  of  vacuum  pan  centrifugal 
crystals  and  other  high  grade  sugars  for  this  market.  Protected  by 
the  Carlisle  bill  and  reciprocity,  Cuban  and  Demerara  crystals,  and 
Hawaiian  free  sugars,  would  certainly  prohibit  the  importation  of 
raw  sugar  material  and  increase  the  cost  of  sugar  food  in  this 
country. 

Abundant  evidence  exists  that  the  adoption  of  the  Hawaiian  Re- 
ciprocity Treaty  of  1875  was,  by  experts,  deemed  to  be  a  legislative 
blunder,  presaging  danger  to  American  sugar  producing  end  refin- 
ing industries,  menacing  consumers  with  enhanced  prices,  and  deal- 
ing treacherously  with  all  other  sugar  producing  countries,  upon 
whose  sugars,  when  sent  to  this  country,  large  duties  are  levied, 
while  sugars  from  the  Hawaiian  or  Sandwich  Islands,  are  admitted 
duty  free. 

Instance  the  following  protest  of  San  Francisco  sugar  refiners, 
against  a  Reciporocity  Treaty  with  Hawaii,  sent  in  March,  1875,  to 
Representative  Luttrell,  in  Washington,  for  presentation  to  Con- 
gress ;  the  solicitude  of  signers  of  this  1875  protest  in  regard  to  the 
interests  of  Eastern  refiners  and  Louisiana  planters,  is  quite  refresh- 
ing in  view  of  the  advantages  since  taken  of  this  treaty  blunder. 
The  protest  was  as  follows  : 

The  undersigned,  refiners  of  the  Pacific  coast,  respectfully  direct  your  attention  to 
the  following  additional,  and,  in  our  opinion,  cogent  reasons,  why  the  Reciprocity 
Treaty  with  the  Hawaiian  Kingdom  should  not  receive  the  sanction  of  the  United 
States  Senate.  The  capacity  of  the  Islands  to  produce  sugar  has  not  been  sufficiently 
explained.  Undoubtedly  authorities  state  positively  that  the  Islands  are  capable  of 
producing  annually  not  less  than  150,000,000  pounds,  or  80,000,000  pounds  more  than 
the  entire  yearly  consumption  of  the  Pacific  coast,  including  all  the  States  and  Terri- 
tories west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains.  Under  the  action  of  reciprocity,  this  vast  amount 
of  sugar  would  find  its  way  to  San  Francico,  and  completely  shut  out  imports  from 
all  other  producing  countries.  Of  the  150,000,000  pounds  the  Islands  would  furnish 
yearly,  this  coast  would  probably  not  take  more  than  30,000,000  pounds  for  domestic 
consumption,  and  the  balance  would  find  its  way  east,  where  it  would  materially  in- 
terfere with  the  interests  of  Eastern  refiners,  and  those  of  the  Southern  planters,  com- 
ing in  direct  competition  with  them,  duty  free.  The  average  duty  now  paid  on 
Hawaiian  sugars  is  2^,  cents  per  pound,  equal  to  .$3,750,000  per  year,  which,  under 
the  present  financial  condition,  is  more  than  the  Government  can  properly  sacrifice 
for  the  benefit  of  a  foreign  people,  particularly  as  that  amount  would  have  to  be  made 
good  by  the  imposition  of  taxes  on  our  people. 

Sugar  can  grow  with  great  luxuriance  at  an  altitude  of  3,000  feet  in  the  Sandwich 
Islands,  and  it  is  an  indigenous  plant.  If  the  whole  area  susceptible  of  being  culti- 
vated with  sugar  cane  were  laid  under  contribution  for  that  purpose,  and,  in  the 
event  of  reciprocity,  such  would  be  the  result,  the  annual  yield  would  considerably 
surpass  150,000,000  pounds.  Even  now  the  Island  planters  produce  and  send  to  our 
market  sugars  ranging  from  seventeen  to  twenty-two  Dutch  standard,  which  are  as 
good  as  our  own  second  grade  refined  sugars,  and,  although  they  are  not  filtered 
through  charcoal,  are  so  superior  that  we  cannot  compete  with  them  except  by  means 
of  our  higher  grades.  It  has  been  the  policy  of  our  Government  to  furnish  a  reason- 
able degree  of  protection  to  domestic  industries,  manufacturing,  products  of  the  soil. 


19 

beet  sugar,  &c.,  and  we  trust  the  sugar  interest  of  the  country  will  not  be  made  an 
exception.  It  is  evident  that  the  introduction  of  sugar,  duty  free,  a  greater  portion 
of  which  would  be  forced  on  the  Eastern  market,  could  not  fail  to  work  injuriously 
against  the  interests  of  Eastern  refiners  and  Southern  planters,  as  well  as  those  of  the 
Pacific  coast  refiners.  Should  the  consideration  of  overshadowing  national  requirements 
render  it  politic  to  sanction  reciprocity,  we  earnestly  trust  the  treaty  will  be  so  framed 
as  to  exclude  from  importation,  duty  free,  all  sugars  of  higher  grades  than  thirteen, 
Dutch  standard,  especially  as  such  interdict  could  not  work  prejudicially  to  planters 
of  Hawaii.  It  is  obvious  to  us  that  the  adoption  of  the  Reciprocity  Treaty  without 
such  restrictions  would  destroy  the  most  important  interests  of  this  coast,  and  at  the 
East,  which  represent  millions  of  capital,  and  give  employment  to  thousands  of  skilled 
workmen,  an  event  which  would  prove  a  serious  impediment  to  such  industries. 
Hawaiian  producers  would  have  us  completely  at  their  mercy,  and  the  great  body  of 
American  consumers  would  be  compelled  to  pay  more  for  an  article  of  absolute 
necessity. 

Trusting  that  this  presentation  of  facts  will  receive  the  attention  they  merit  at  your 
honorable  hands,   we  are   most  respectfully  your  obedient  servants, 

C.  Spreckels,  President   California  Sugar  Refinery; 

N.  LuNiXG,  President  Pacific  Sugar  Refinery; 

M.  EnRMAX,  Manager  Golden  Gate  Sugar  Refinery; 

Herman  Meese,  President  Bay  Sugar  Refinery. 

Notice  the  inevitable  sequence  of  admitting  Hawaiian  sugars 
duty  free,  in  its  relation  to  the  above  protest ;  the  leading  signer  of 
the  protest  of  1875  against  a  Treaty  of  Reciprocity  with  Hawaii, 
has  become  tVie  leading  advocate  of  its  continuance,  and  is  producing 
Hawaiian  sugars  to  be  admitted  to  his  San  Francisco  refineries  duty 
free;  his  capital,  brains,  ettbrts,  and  skill,  are  lavishly  expended  iu 
forcing  the  sugar  producing  powers  of  the  Sandwich  Islands  for 
such  purpose. 

N"o  sooner  was  the  treaty  ratified  in  1876,  than  Mr.  Claus 
Spreckels,  the  leading  protester  against  the  Reciprocity  Treaty, 
went  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands  and  bought  and  leased  26,000  acres  of 
land  in  the  Island  of  Maui,  sent  to  England  for  750  tons  of  boiler 
plate  iron,  made  it  into  pipes,  and  brought  water  40  miles  for  irri- 
gation, at  a  cost  of  a  million  of  dollars;  the  protest  was  an  over- 
sight; utilizing  the  treaty  was  sharp  practice. 

Spreckels'  treaty  venture  produced  500  acres  of  sugar  cane  in 
1879;  2,750  acres  in  1880  ;  and  the  area  planted  in  cane  has  been 
extended  in  1881  to  about  4,750  acres;  the  first  yield  from  the 
Spreckels'  plantation  cane,  averaged  five  tons  of  sugar  to  the  acre  ; 
clearly  this  enterprising  protester  intends  to  make  good  the  words 
of  his  protest,  in  regard  to  Eastern  refiners  and  Louisiana  planters, 
while  oppressing  Pacific  coast  consumers. 

Again,  the  leading  signer  of  the  above  protest,  who,  in  1875,  de- 
clared that  the  treaty  could  not  fail  to  injure  Eastern  refiners  and 
Southern  planters,  is  now  working  injury  to  consumers  of  sugar 
on  the  Pacific  coast.  Eastern  refiners.  Southern  planters,  and  rev- 
enue interests,  to  subserve  the  interests  of  the  powerful  monopoly, 
established  by  consolidating  Pacific  coast  refineries  with  the  im- 
mense sugar  plantations  and  sugar  making  establishments  acquired 
by  Spreckels  &  Company  for  such  purpose,  in  the  treaty  favored 
islands  of  Hawaii. 


20 

Thus  the  leading  signer  of  the  above  protest  against  the  ad- 
mission of  Hawaiian  sugars  duty  free  has,  with  others,  taken  advan- 
tage of  its  pernicious  provisions,  and  become  the  leader  of  gigantic 
operations  in  sugar  food,  which,  in  addition  to  depriving  the  nation 
of  revenue  without  rendering  any  equivalent,  place  consumers  of 
sugars  on  the  Pacific  coast  under  tribute,  rendered  obligatory  by 
prohibiting  Eastern  refined  sugars. 

American  capitalists  and  extensive  refiners  of  sugar  in  California, 
in  co-operation  with  Hawaiian  producers  of  sugar,  control  the  sugar 
trade  of  Hawaii,  and  through  this  control  of  free  sugars,  also  reg- 
ulate prices  of  refined  sugars  to  consumers  on  the  Pacific  coast, 
keeping  them  as  high  as  possible  without  admitting  refined  sugars 
from  the  Atlantic  States  in  quantities  sufiicient  for  successful  com- 
petition against  free  sugars  refined  in  California. 

Monied  influences  have  coerced  and  subsidized  the  carrying  trade 
of  California,  until  the  freight  on  sugar  from  the  Eastern  States  has 
been  raised  to  prohibitory  rates,  thus  giving  the  Pacific  and 
Hawaiian  sugar  monopolists  at  least  $2.50  per  100  lbs.  duty  saved, 
and  $2.00  per  100  lbs.  freight  from  the  Atlantic  coast  to  California, 
or  $4.50  per  100  lbs.  advantage  over  Louisiana  planters  and  East- 
ern importers  and  refiners  of  dutiable  sugars;  of  which  enormous 
profits,  not  a  fraction  goes  to  cheapen  sugar  or  benefit  consumers  of 
sugars  on  the  Pacific  coast. 

While  every  available  acre  of  land  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands  is 
being  planted  with  cane,  and  gigantic  sugar  factories  fitted 
with  the  best  modern  machinery,  including  vacuum  pans  and  cen- 
trifugals, have  been  and  are  being  erected  under  the  benign  pro- 
tectorate of  the  Reciprocity  Treaty,  the  United  States  have  not 
even  supplied  the  machinery  for  Hawaiian  plantations;  England 
and  Scotland  have  furnished  the  machinery  for  which  this  country 
footed  the  bills.  Pacific  coast  monopolists  alone  are  enriched  under 
the  treaty. 

Tables  1,  2,  and  3  in  this  exhibit  show  the  sum  of  sugar  duty  lost 
and  the  shallowness  of  the  reciprocity  pretense  from  1876  to  June 
30,  1880.  The  exhibit  for  the  year  ended  June  30,  1881,  is  still 
worse.  For  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1881,  compared  with 
1880,  in  regard  to  the  quantity  and  value  of  Hawaiian  sugars  en- 
tered for  consumption,  duty  thereon  lost  at  62.50  per  cent,  ad  val- 
orem, and  the  total  value  of  domestic  merchandise  exported  to  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  under  the  treaty  in  the  same  time,  the  exhibit  is 
as  follows  : 

Year.  Hawaiian  sugars 

consumed.  . 

1880 61,556,324  lbs. 

1881 76,909,207  lbs. 


Total 138,465,531  lbs. 


Foreign 

Duty  lost  1  per 

Domestic 

Value. 

cent,  ad  val. 

Exports  to 
Hawaii. 

$4,135,486 

$2,574,678 

$1,985,506 

4,927,021 

3,079,388 

2,694,583 

19,062,507 

$5,654,066 

$4,680,089 

21 

Average  loreifijn  cost  of  Hawaii  sugars  per  100  pounds,  1880, 
16.72;  1881,  $6.40. 

The  classitication  of  Hawaiian  sugars  in  1880,  1881,  were  as  fol- 
lows : 

Class,  Dutch  Standard.  1880.  1881. 

Above  No.  7  not  above  No.  10 7,793,-349  lbs.  5,873,005  lbs. 

"10    "         "      No.  13 28.-1 16,596  lbs.  28,486,-589    " 

"    "13  "    "   No.  16 28,868,886  lbs.  43,049,613  '• 

"    "16  "    "  No.  20 1,477,493  lbs. 

Total  Hawaiian  sugars 61,5-56,324  lbs.  76,909,207    " 

Summing  up  for  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1881,  we  find  that 
the  United  States  purchased  Hawaiian  sugars  valued  in  Hawaii  at 
$4,927,021,  and  admitted  them  free  of  duty,  at  a  loss  of  62.50  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  thereon  of  customs  revenue,  or  $3,079,388  of  duty 
thrown  away,  and  only  managed  to  sell  $2,694,583,  total  value  of 
domestic  merchandise  exported  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands  in  the  same 
year,  or  $384,805  less  than  the  loss  of  sugar  duty  alone. 

Further,  we  also  see  that  the  sugars  thus  exempted  from  duty 
are  mostly  semi-refined  grades  which  average,  according  to  the  ofli- 
cial  classifications  in  1881,  above  No.  13  to  not  above  No.  16  D.  S. 
in  color,  and  that  we  paid  $6.40  per  100  lbs.  for  sugars  in  Hawaii, 
while  the  average  cost  of  sugars  entered  for  consumption  from  all 
other  sugar  producing  countries  was  only  $4.42  per  100  lbs.  in  the 
same  fiscal  year. 

The  abolition  of  duty  on  Hawaiian  sugars  has,  in  five  years,  de- 
prived us  of  more  than  ten  millions  of  dollars  of  customs  revenue, 
and  enormously  advanced  the  foreign  cost  of  the  sugars  we  exempt 
from  duty ;  the  treaty  also  deprives  us  raw  material,  which  is  ad- 
vanced to  high  grades  in  Hawaii  at  the  expense  of  Ainerican  indus- 
tries; the  grades  of  sugar  now  imported  from  Hawaii,  are  equal  in 
quality  to  and  cost  in  Hawaii  more  than  the  best  Cuban  and  Dem- 
erara  vacuum-pan  crystals  testing  95  to  99.5°  in  purity,  while  they 
average  above  No.  13  1).  S.  in  color  in  1881,  as  seen  above. 

Riipid  strides  are  making  in  Hawaiian  sugar  production,  and  in 
the  manufacture  of  high  grades  of  sugars,  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Reciprocity  Treaty,  in  striking  contrast  to  the  otherwise  backward 
industrial  condition  of  the  Kingdom  of  Hawaii.  The  increased 
influx  of  free  sugars  from  Hawaii  has  been  as  follows :  30,368,328 
lbs.  entered  into  consumption  in  the  year  ending  June  30,  1878, 
41,693,069  lbs.  in  1879,  61,556,324  lbs.  in  1880,  and  76,909,207  lbs. 
in  1881 ;  at  least  100,000,000  of  lbs.  will  enter  duty  free  in  1882  ; 
with  a  loss  of  duty  thereon  of  $4,000,000. 

Eastern  refiners,  Louisiana  planters,  and  projectors  of  beet  and 
Borghum  sugar  industries  may  well  view  the  extent  of  the  injuries 
inflicted  upon  their  legitimate  industries  by  the  Hawaiian  Treaty 
with  consternation ;  having  already  shut  out  Eastern  and  Southern 


22 

competition  in  sugars  from  the  Pacific  coast,  it  will  not  be  long  be- 
fore the  rapidly  increasing  sugar  product  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands 
will  crowd  the  Eastern  markets  with  duty  free  sugars,  to  unsettle 
the  prices  of  sugar  food  and  check  consumption  and  home  produc- 
tion effectually. 

Instance  the  following  comparative  exhibit  for  1881  of  dutiable 
sugars  versus  Hawaiian  free  sugars ;  there  entered  into  consump- 
tion in  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1881  : 

Dutiable  dry  sugars,  1,869,173,897  lbs.,  foreign  average  cost  per  100  lbs $4.42 

Hawaiian  free  sugars  76,909,207        "         "  "  "      "       "      "    6.40 

Duty  received  from  dutiable  sugars  in  1881 $45,933,045 

Duty  lost  on  Hawaiian  sugars  in  1881 3,079,388 

While  levying  duty  upon  the  great  volume  of  cheaper  sugars 
received  from  all  other  sugar  producing  countries,  there  is  nothing 
rational  in  thus  exempting  the  higher  priced  sugars  of  Hawaii  from 
duty. 

Consumers  of  sugars  on  the  Pacific  coast  are  simply  swindled  by 
the  Hawaiian  Treaty ;  merchants  in  San  Francisco,  Sacramento, 
Portland,  and  other  places  on  the  Pacific  coast  were  compelled  to 
pay  an  average  of  12|  cents  per  lb.  for  crushed  sugars,  from 
January  to  December,  1881,  while  the  same  refined  outturn  from 
Hawaii  sugars  was  being  sold  to  merchants  in  Denver,  Santa  Fe, 
and  Kansas  City  at  9J  cents  per  lb.  for  crushed  sugars,  and  lower 
grades  pro  rata ;  that  is.  Pacific  Coast  consumers  pay  3  cents  per 
lb.  more  for  Spreckels'  duty  free  sugars  than  Spreckels  sells  the 
same  sugars  for  to  more  Eastern  cities  reached  by  Louisiana  planters 
and  Eastern  refiners. 

Furthermore,  the  price  of  crushed  sugars  refined  from  Hawaiian 
duty  free  sugars  in  San  Francisco  was  12|  cents  per  lb.  November 
5  last,  while  the  price  of  crushed  sugars  refined  from  dutiable 
sugars  in  the  East  was  10|-  to  10|  cents  per  lb.  in  New  York  on  the 
same  date;  the  price  of  Golden  C  sugars  refined  from  duty  free 
sugar  in  San  Francisco  was  10|  cents  per  lb.  November  5,  while 
similar  grades  sold  in  New  York  on  the  same  day  at  8|  to  8f  cents 
per  lb.;  what  avails  this  to  Pacific  coast  consumers,  when  the 
freight  on  sugar  from  Louisiana  and  the  East  to  San  Francisco, 
which  was  twenty  dollars  per  ton  in  1880,  has  been  raised  to  forty 
dollars  per  ton  in  1881. 

Instead  of  cheapening  refined  sugars  on  the  Pacific  coast,  or  even 
conforming  to  Eastern  prices  of  similar  refined  outturn  from  dutia- 
ble sugars,  the  Spreckels  free  sugar  dynasty  have  prohibited  gro- 
cer's sugars,  and  advanced  prices  of  refined  grades  to  consumers  in 
California  two  cents  per  pound  beyond  the  Eastern  market,  main- 
taining exorbitant  prices  by  prohibitory  rates  of  freight  on  sugars 
from  the  East,  buying  and  coercing  Pacific  railroad  freight  agents 
to  double  the  California  rates  of  frei.2:ht  on  Eastern  sugars  in  a 
single  year,  as  already  shown. 


'to' 


23 

What  more  reliable  evidence  of  the  rascally  abuses  of  the  Ha- 
waiian Treaty  is  required  than  the  fact  that  at  this  writino^,  Janu- 
ary, 1882,  there  is  a  Glaus,  Spreckels  &  Co.  "ring"  of  interested 
leaders  and  employes  in  Washington,  having  unlimited  means, 
who  are  seeking  to  prevent  the  abrogation  of  this  Hawaiian  treaty 
monstrosity,  failing  in  which  they  are  instructed  to  push  annex- 
ation of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  to  this  country,  as  a  means  of  perpet- 
uating the  outrages  now  perpetrated  upon  consumers  of  sugar  on 
the  Pacitic  coast  and  upon  American  sugar  industries  simply  to  en- 
rich the  "  ring." 

Should  this  Spreckels  "  ring"  succeed  as  a  precedent,  this  Nation 
would  soon  become  a  general  hospital  for  the  support  of  semi-de- 
funct countries  and  petty  kingdoms,  and  reciprocit}'  with  such 
would  be  forced  upon  the  people  of  this  country  with  terrors  of  an- 
nexation staring  them  in  the  face  whenever  a  "  ring  "  of  interested 
capitalists  see  their  way  clear  to  enrich  themselves  by  the  method 
of  robbing  the  people  and  destroying  American  industries,  now 
practised  and  sought  to  be  perpetrated  by  the  Claus,  Spreckels 
dynast^'. 

What  better  than  reciprocity  with  Hawaii,  is  annexation  with 
Hawaii?  Of  the  two  dread  evils  the  present  treaty  is  least.  Why 
should  the  senseless  and  unprofitable  treaty  burden  alread}'  borne 
by  the  United  States  and  constantly  increasing,  at  a  cost  of  millions 
of  dollars  per  annum  of  direct  loss  to  the  revenues  of  this  nation, 
and  of  millions  of  dollars  per  annum  more  to  the  industries  of  this 
country,  be  saddled  upon  the  American  people  forever  by  annex- 
ation, only  to  enrich  a  dozen  speculators. 

The  Hawaiian  Islands  do  not  and  can  never  repay  the  current 
cost  of  their  support  by  this  Government;  individuals  only  will  be 
enriched  in  an}^  event.  This  nation  now  sustains  the  so-called  king- 
dom of  Hawaii  under  the  guise  of  reciprocity  of  trade,  the  results 
and  costs  of  which  are  set  forth  in  the  .tables  in  this  exhibit.  This 
condition  we  can  escape  by  abrogation  or  by  terminating  the  treaty 
by  due  notice.  Experience  and  wisdom  teach  this  nation  to  beware 
of  annexation  with  its  countless  evils  and  burdens,  which  we  can- 
not escape. 

Annexation  would  bankrupt  the  native  Hawaiian  sugar  planters, 
to  whom  Spreckels  &  Co.  have  made  large  cash  advances  upon 
plantation  and  machinery  mortgages,  and  agreements  with  Spreckels 
that  he  should  handle  their  crops.  Hawaiian  planters  predicated 
such  transactions  upon  high  prices  of  sugar  under  a  continuance  of 
the  treaty,  abrogation  of  which  would  still  leave  them  in  possession  ; 
but  annexation  and  the  application  of  United  States  laws  would 
open  upon  the  Hawaiian  Islanders  the  jaws  of  destruction,  by  fore- 
closures and  the  influx  of  Spreckel's  "ring"  capitalists. 

The  Hawaiian  Reciprocity  Treaty  cannot  be  abrogated  too  soon ; 
far  better  and  cheaper   for  this  nation   to  donate  a  trifle  to  the  Ha- 


24 

waiian  Islands  as  a  matter  of  charity,  and  levy  duty  on  their  sugars, 
than  to  continue  in  any  form  or  manner  the  annual  payment  of  the 
enormous  sugar  bounty  tribute  now  levied  upon  American  con- 
sumers, sugar  industries  and  revenue,  by  said  treaty,  simply  for  the 
support  of  the  kingdom  of  Hawaii,  and  the  enrichment  of  the 
Spreckels  dynasty. 

Taking  the  sums  total  of  Hawaiian  merchandise  entered  for  con- 
sumption in  this  country,  exports  of  domestic  merchandise  to  the 
kingdom  of  Hawaii,  the  proportion  in  value  of  sugars  entered  for 
consumption,  and  the  loss  of  duty  on  sugars  alone,  at  62.50  per 
cent,  ad  valorem,  under  the  treaty  in  the  live  fiscal  years  ended 
June  30,  1877,  to  June  30,  1881,  inclusive,  the  exhibit  is  as  follows, 
sugar  constituting  90.81  per  cent,  of  the  total  consumption  of 
Hawaiian  merchandise  : 

Total  Imports  Total  Exports  Total  Sugars  Loss  of  Duty 

consumption.  dom.  mdse.  consumed.  on  sugar  alone. 

$17,905,365.  $9,761,142.  $16,260,399.  $10,162,749. 

Such  are  some  of  the  evil  results  of  the  Hawaiian  Reciprocity 
.Treaty  that  demand  its  ending ;  they  assimilate  the  evils  projected 
in  the  Carlisle  sugar  bill,  the  mixed  duty  or  Boston  plan,  and 
all  other  uniform  duty  to  13  or  16  D.  S.  plans,  which,  by  favoring 
centrifugals  and  prohibiting  raw  sugars,  subtly  provide  extraordi- 
nary facilities  for  building  up  Cuban  and  other  foreign  vacuum-pan 
crystal  making,  coloring,  and  refining  industries,  to  the  detriment 
of  American  consumers  and  taxpayers,  and  upon  the  ruins  of 
American  sugar  productive  and  refining  industries. 

The  Hawaiian  Treaty  continues  seven  years  from  September,  1876, 
'*  and  lurther  until  the  expiration  of  twelve  months  after  either  of 
the  high  contracting  parties  shall  give  notice  to  the  other  of  its  wish 
to  terminate  the  same,"  but  inasmuch  as  the  terms  of  the  Treaty  as 
regards  sugar,  have  been  continually  violated,  and  for  other  potent 
reasons.  Congress  should  not  hesitate  to  cancel  the  Treaty  and  pre- 
vent annexation. 

The  Treaty  of  1875  with  Hawaii  exempts  only,  "muscovado, 
brown,  and  all  other  unrefined  sugar,  meaning  thereby  the  grades 
of  sugar  heretofore  commonly  imported  from  the  Hawaiian  Islands, 
and  now  (1875)  known  in  the  markets  of  San  Francisco  as  Sandwich 
Island  sugars;  "  but  the  treaty  does  not  exempt  the  Hawaiian  semi- 
refined  high-grade  vacuum-pan  sugars,  which  now  claim  free  entry 
as  raw  sugars. 

Every  pound  of  foreign  sugars  imported  into  this  country  should 
be  made  dutiable,  and  pay  duty  pro  rata  to  the  intrinsic  color, 
grade,  quality,  and  foreign  value  thereof,  accurately  determined  by 
grinding,  polarization,  and  the  Dutch  standard,  and  by  compari- 
sons with  trade  valuations  in  the  foreign  market  and  in  the  home 


25 

market,  a[)plying  impartially  any  or  all  of  these   tests  as  occasion 
may  demand. 

With  the  above  named  adjuncts  to  the  Dutch  standard  in  opera- 
tion on  all  sugars,  including  Hawaiian,  and  a  simple  amendment  to 
the  present  sugar  tariff  hereinafter  subjoined,  false  classifications 
and  evasions  of  duty  would  abate,  the  rights  of  American  con- 
sumers of  sugar  would  be  respected,  and  home  productive  and  refin- 
ing industries  and  revenue  interests  would   be  efficiently  protected. 


SECTION  THIRD. 


Comparative  Sugar  Tariff  Analyses  ;  Carlisle's  Sugar  Bill ; 
Uniform  Duty  Plans  ;  Present  Sugar  Tariff;  Ad  valorem 
and  Compound  Equivalents  ;  Canadian  Sugar  Tariff  Ex- 
amples ;  Classifications  Improved ;  Refining  in  Bond ; 
Tariff  Defects  ;  Amendment  and  Remedies. 

The  within  estimates  of  the  average  foreign  cost  of  sugars,  are 
approximate  deductions  from  private  and  official  information  cur- 
rently received  from  sugar  producing  countries  by  the  writer,  and 
from  prices  current  in  1880  and  1881,  in  contiguous  and  remote 
sugar  producing  countries;  as  a  basis  of  average  foreign  market 
values,  they  are  applied  alike  to  the  present  sugar  tariff,  the  Carlisle 
bill,  the  uniform  duty  to  No.  16  D.  S.  plan,  and  the  whole  tabular 
exhibit,  and  are,  therefore,  correctly  equitable. 

The  following  table  exhibits  the  animus  of  the  Carlisle  sugar  bill, 
and  the  uniform  duty  to  16  D.  S.  plan.  Estimated  average  cost  and 
duty  on  100  pounds : 

Table  1. 


>> 

002 

o 

D 

cS     • 

(^jO 

bli 

fi 

> 

'd.  «5 

^CO 

Class  Average,  D.  S. 

OS 

P5 

n3 
< 

> 

'^3 

l6 

1- 

1^ 

<B 

^<j 

^7^ 

t> 

OJ 

> 

SS 

eS 

c  0 

< 

H 

< 

P^ 

o 

^^^ 

$2.4oto  N0.13 

Melada 

$2.50 

62  to  70 

$1.87^ 

75.0 

96.0  per  ct. 

80.0  per  ct. 

Sugar  not  above  7  D.  S.- 

3.50 

70  to  85 

2.18!! 

62.5 

68.6       " 

57.0        " 

Above  7,  not  above  10 

4  AW, 

85  to  92 

2.50 

54.0 

51.9 

43.2        " 

Above  10,  not  above  13-_ 

5.25 

88  to  98 

2.811 

53.5 

45.7       " 
$2.'j£to  No.jb 

38.0        " 

Above  13,  not  above  16.. 

6.12^ 

92  to  99 

3.433 

56.1 

44.9  per  ct. 
$4  above  No.  tb 

32.6        " 
$4  above  No,  16 

Above  16,  not  above  20_- 

6.50 

93  to  99 

4.06] 

62.5 

61.5  per  ct.     61.5  per  ct. 

Soft  above  20 . 

7.50 

94  to  99 

5.00 

66.6 

53  3       " 

53.3        " 

Hard  above  '20 

8.50 

!)5  to  99.5 

5.00 

68.8 

47.0 

47.0        " 

26 

Uniform  duty  of  one  cent  per  pound,  would  present  the  ad  valo- 
rem unfairness  contained  in  the  two  cents  per  pound  phm  as  seen 
above  ;  for  instance,  one  cent  per  pound  would  be  an  ad  valorem 
rate  of  40  per  cent,  on  Melada,  28^  per  cent,  on  class  not  above  7 
D.  S.,  21.6  per  cent,  on  class  not  above  10  D.  S.,  19  per  cent,  on  class 
not  above  13  D.  S.,  and  16.3  per  cent,  on  class  not  above  16  D.  S.; 
while  such  a  wholesale  reduction  of  duty  would  be  a  blunder  de- 
structive to  every  American  industry  and  interest  connected  with 
sugar  food,  as  will  be  proven  hereinafter. 

Sugar  bills,  imposing  a  uniform  duty  on  all  sugar  not  above  No. 
13  D.  S.,  have  the  appearance  of,  and  claim  to  be,  artless  means  of 
settling  the  sugar  question  and  simplifying  the  collection  of  sugar 
duty;  in  reality  they  are  subtle  artifices  for  the  prohibition  of  raw 
sugar  material ;  for  the  protection  of  foreign  producers  of  refined 
sugar  crystals  decolorized  outwardly  to  not  above  No.  13  D.  S.,  in 
color;  for  the  encouragement  of  sugar  refining  in  producing  coun- 
tries, and  especially  for  the  enrichment  of  their  projectors  at  public 
cost. 

Table  No.  1  presented  above,  exhibits  the  animus  of  both  the 
Carlisle  bill  and  the  uniform  duty  on  all  sugar  to  No.  16  plan;  by 
comparing  the  ad  valorem  rates  of  the  present  tariff  with  the  ad 
valorem  rates  projected  in  the  Carlisle  bill  and  uniform  duty  plans, 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  present  average  ad  valorem  rates  of  duty  on 
melada  and  on  all  sugars  not  above  No.  7  D.  S.,  are  heavily  in- 
creased, in  uniform  duty  plans,  to  prevent  their  importation,  and  the 
present  average  ad  valorem  rates  on  sugars  above  No.  7  not  above 
No.  13  D.  S.  are  heavily  decreased  in  uniform  duty  plans,  to  protect 
foreign  vacuum  pan  colored  cr^'stals. 

Again,  it  will  be  seen  in  the  same  table  (1)  that  the  present  aver- 
age ad  valorem  rate  of  duty  on  sugars  above  No.  13  not  above  No. 
16  D.  S.  is  also  heavily  reduced  by  the  uniform  duty  plans,  for  the 
protection  of  refined  crystals  manufactured  of  a  bright  yellow  color, 
and  imported  as  raw  sugar  but  intended  to  be  sold  as  refined 
sugars  for  consumption,  at  large  profits  enhanced  by  duty  evaded 
and  by  the  aid  of  foreign  coolie  and  slave  labor. 

Furthermore,  Table  No.  1  shows  that  the  present  average  ad  val- 
orem duty  on  foreign  white  soft  and  hard  refined  sugars  is  heavily 
reduced  in  the  Carlisle  Sugar  bill  and  uniform  duty  plans,  and  ren- 
dered entirely  inadequate  for  the  protection  of  Louisiana  sugars  and 
our  enormous  refining  industries  against  foreign  producers  of  such 
sugars,  besides  inviting  the  bount3'-fed  refined  beet  sugar  product 
of  Europe  to  control  our  market  and  destroy  our  sugar  industries, 
and  having  done  so,  to  enhance  the  cost  of  sugar  to  American  con- 
sumers at  pleasure. 

The  Carlisle  Sugar  bill  and  uniform  duty  plans  reverse  the  ra- 
tional order  of  levying  duty.  It  will  be  seen  in  Table  1  that  the 
higher    the    color,  grade,    quality,   and    foreign    cost   of  imported 


27 

sugars,  the  lower  the  rate  of  duty  levied  under  uniform  duty  plans, 
in  order  to  protect  foreign  retined  centrifugal  crystals;  and  the 
lower  the  color,  grade,  quality,  and  foreign  cost  ot  imported  sugars, 
including  melada,  the  higher  the  rates  of  duty  projected  in  said 
plans  in  order  to  prohibit  raw  sugar  material  and  curtail  American 
sugar  producing  and  refining  industries. 

Under  the  uniform  duty  plans  Cuban  and  Demerara  centrifugal 
crystals,  manufactured  from  refined  syrup,  and  discolored  to  not 
above  13  D.  S.  in  the  process  of  graining  in  the  finishing  or  vacuum 
pans,  as  elsewhere  described,  averaging  |5.25  per  100  pounds, 
foreign  cost,  (see  Table  1,)  would  pay  the  same  duty,  $2.40,  as 
melada  and  the  lowest  grades  of  raw  sugar  material ;  only  45.7  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  duty  is  levied  on  refined,  but  discolored,  centrifugal 
crj'stals,  95  to  99°  in  purity,  while  96  per  cent,  ad  valorem  duty  is 
levied  on  raw  sugar  material  containing  25  to  32  per  cent,  impuri- 
ties by  the  Carlisle  bill,  and  80  per  cent,  by  the  No.  16  D.  S.  plan. 

Further,  the  Carlisle  bill  proposes  to  admit  semi-refined  crystals 
above  13,  not  above  16  T>.  S.,  costing  on  the  average  $6.12|  per  100 
pounds  (see  Table  1)  in  the  country  of  production,  at  $2.75  per  100 
pounds  duty,  and  levies  $2.40  per  100  pounds  duty  on  melada  and 
the  lowest  grades  of  raw  sugar  below  No.  7  D.  S.;  that  is,  the 
foreign  refined  crystals  are  to  come  in  at  44.9  per  cent,  duty  for 
their  protection,  and  raw  material  must  pay  96  per  cent,  duty, 
which  means  prohibition  thereof  by  overtax  and  by  consumption 
in  making  colored  crystals  in  producing  countries  for  this  market. 

Instead  of  simplifying  the  collection  of  sugar  duty,  the  uniform 
duty  plans  further  complicate  the  collection  thereof  by  totally 
ignoring  classification  checks  and  safeguards  for  the  proper  execu- 
tion of  the  revenue  laws;  they  propose  the  admission  of  dutiable 
sugars  virtually  without  examination  by  tlie  only  methods  that 
would  detect,  check,  or  hinder  fraudulent  practices,  and  by  the 
constant  application  of  which  all  transactions  in  raw  and  refined 
sugars  are  now  conducted  in  the  great  sugar  marts  and  principal 
Bugar  producing  countries. 

Again  reverting  attention  to  Table  No.  1,  the  subtle  elements  of 
the  Carlisle  bill  appear  in  an  equally  dangerous  form,  under  the 
artless  disguise  of  uniform  duty  of  one  to  tvvo  cents  per  pound  on 
all  sugars  not  above  Nos.  13  or  16  D.  S.;  the  purposes  of  these  plans 
are  precisely  those  of  the  Carlisle  bill,  with  an  additional  turn  of  the 
foreign  screw,  in  favor  of  dutiable  centrifugal  sugars  above  13  not 
above  16  D.  S.  in  color,  and  against  American  producers  and  re- 
finers of  cane,  beet,  and  sorghum  sugars,  and  equally  against  con- 
sumers. 

Uniform  duty  to  13  or  16  D.  S.  has  never  possessed  a  single 
merit  beyond  that  of  catering  to  ofiicial  incapacity  in  levying  duty. 
"When  suggested  to  the  Government  in  1877  by  the  writer,  the  in- 
tent was  to  protect  the  revenue  in  the  absence  of  radical  reforraa- 


28 

tion  needed  in  executing  tariff  laws;  the  plan  might  have  been  tried 
at  that  time  with  ftiir  hopes  of  correcting  false  sampling,  but  has 
since  become  impracticable,  owing  to  rapid  advancement  in  making 
and  coloring  refined  crystals  to  imitate  raw  sugar  in  producing 
countries,  and  outgrowing  dangers  to  American  commerce  and  in- 
dustries. 

Reverting  to  Table  1,  for  comparison,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  uni- 
form duty  to  16  D.  S.  artifice,  purposes  to  admit  centrifugal  cr3'8tal8 
and  other  foreign  sugars  refined  to  not  above  16  D.  S.  in  color,  at 
32.6  per  cent,  dut}^  advalorem,  and  levies  80  per  cent,  duty  on  me- 
lada,  and  57  per  cent,  duty  on  all  raw  sugar  material  not  above  7 
D.  S.  in  color,  in  order  to  protect  the  foreign  manufacture  of  refined 
crystals  and  prohibit  raw  material  by  duiy  discrimination. 

Uniform  duty  on  sugar  plans,  reverse  rational  methods  of  levying 
dut}"  by  reducing  the  rate  of  duty  on  sugars  as  their  grade,  quality, 
and  foreign  cost  increase,  until  the  duty  on  100  pounds  of  Melada 
containing  60  to  70  per  cent,  crystals  and  30  to  40  per  cent,  of  im- 
purities and  water,  will  admit  100  pounds  of  foreign  refined  dry 
crystals  testing  99°  in  purity,  but  colored  to  not  above  13  or  16 
D.  S.,  as  the  case  may  be,  to  evade  proper  duty;  and  uniform  duty 
plans  rapidly  increase  the  rate  of  duty  on  sugars  as  the  grade,  quality, 
and  foreign  value  thereof  decrease,  which  prohibits  raw  material. 

Beyond  the  No.  16  D.  S.  point,  the  uniform  duty  to  16  plan  and 
the  Carlisle  bill  are  identical ;  all  uniform  duty  plans  furnish  wea- 
pons to  Cuban  and  West  India  manufacturers  of  colored  crystals, 
and  to  European  refiners  of  cane  and  beet  sugars,  for  the  destruction 
of  American  sugar  producing  and  refining  industries,  and  would 
cripple  our  growing  commerce  with  remote  sugar  producing  coun- 
tries whose  raw  sugars  would,  if  prohibited  to  us,  find  their  way  to 
Cuban  vacuum-pans  to  be  turned  into  crystals  colored  to  the  tarifi[" 
limit,  to  escape  duty. 

Louisiana  planters  and  American  refiners  are  deeply,  3^es,  vitally, 
interested  in  this  matter.  They  may  well  look  with  concern  upon 
this  just  exhibit  of  Cuban  and  West  India  plans  for  the  destruction 
of  their  industries,  put  forth  under  the  apparently  artless  pretense 
of  simplifying  the  collection  of  duty  on  sugar,  and  settling  the 
sugar  question.  Uniform  duty  on  sugar  would  utterly  destroy  our 
beet  and  sorghum  sugar  enterprises,  which,  like  all  embryotic 
American  industries,  naturally  and  properly  demand  protection 
against  underhand  foreign  encroachments. 

Fifty  years'  history  of  tariff"  laws  for  levying  duty  on  sugars  in 
this  and  other  great  sugar  consuming  countries,  dependent  u[)on 
foreign  sugars  for  consumption,  evidences  that  every  attempt  to  ap- 
proach uniform  duty  on  sugars  has  proved  disastrous  or  impractica- 
ble and  been  abandoned,  even  when  foreign  raw  sugars  were  not, 
as  they  now  are,  advanced  in  producing  countries  by  refining  the 
syrup  and  manufacturing  and  coloring  crystals  in  vacuum-pans  to 
victimize  this  people. 


29 

Still  more  dans^erous,  even  suicidal,  would  uniform  duty  on 
sugars  be,  under  existing  circumstances,  when  it  is  clearly  the  pur- 
pose of  such  plans  to  reverse  the  natural  order  of  refining  sugars 
in  this  country  for  the  adequate  supply  of  cheap  pure  sugars  to  the 
poor  and  costly  grades  to  the  rich.  Upwards  of  two  thousand 
millions  of  pounds  of  refined  sugars  are  consumed  annually  by  the 
people  of  this  country,  seventy  (70)  per  cent,  of  which  must  be  re- 
fined from  actual  raw  sugar  material,  in  its  normal  condition,  test- 
ing from  65°  to  below  92°  in  crystals,  in  order  to  produce  pure  but 
cheap  refined  cane  sugars  for  the  masses,  or  middling  and  poorer 
classes. 

Admitting  foreign  refined  crystals  95  to  99  per  cent,  in  purity, 
but  colored  in  vacuum  pans  to  not  above  13  or  16  D.  S.,  at  less  than 
half  the  aji  valorem  rate  of  duty  levied  on  actual  raw  material,  (see 
table  No.  1)  would  compel  refiners  to  employ  only  high  grade  sugars 
for  refining,  and  superinduce  glucose  adulteration  ;  under  such  a 
regime,  centrifugals  of  great  purity  would  constitute  the  bulk  of 
sugar  imports;  thus  heavily  reducing  importations  and  revenue, 
enhancing  the  cost  of  sugars  to  consumers,  and  crippling  our  grow- 
ing commerce  with  remote  sugar  producing  countries. 

Clayed  sugars  above  No.  20  Dutch  standard  in  color,  pay  duty  as 
refined  sugars,  while  the  Carlisle  sugar  bill  and  uniform  duty  plans 
admit  at  the  lowest  rate  of  duty,  centrifugals  containing  nine-nine  (99) 
per  cent,  of  refined  crystals  outwardly  colored  to  No.  13  Dutch 
standard,  but  when  ground  producing  sugar  above  No.  20  Dutch 
standard  in  color,  equal  to  or  better  than  No.  20  Dutch  standard 
Java  clayed  sugars.  Clearly  the  admission  of  such  sugars  at  the 
lowest  rate  of  duty  must  prohibit  the  importation  of  raw  sugars. 

Besides,  the  Carlisle  sugar  bill  and  uniform  plans  would  in 
no  wise  correct  abuses  or  adjust  antagonisms  between  the  Treasury 
Department  and  sugar  merchants — dififerences  which  are  almost  in- 
variably created  by  attempts  to  enter  discolored  centrifugal  sugars 
as  raw  sugars,  nefarious  practices  which  the  Carlisle  bill  and  all 
uniform  duty  plans  are  fashioned  to  sanction,  but  which  can  and 
should  be  suppressed  altogether. 

Carlisle's  sugar  bill  ofiers  only  a  pretense  of  protection.  It  is  a 
fact  that  in  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1879,  only  §2.33  per  100 
lbs.  duty  was  collected  on  all  dutiable  sugars  entered  for  consump- 
tion, and  Carlisle's  sugar  bill  off"ers  a  duty  of  $2.40  per  100  lbs.  on 
all  sugars  not  above  No.  13  D.  S.  in  color;  but  the  $2.33  per  100 
lbs.  duty,  was  the  result  of  false  classifications  of  Cuban  and 
Demerara  colored  crystals  of  great  purity,  as  raw  sugars,  by  which 
means  duty  was  evaded. 

Keference  to  the  classification  tables  in  these  exhibits,  will  show 
that  the  writer's  exposures  in  1879  and  since,  in  regard  to  coloring 
crystals  to  evade  duty,  quickly  advanced  classificatio'ns  and  increased 
the  average  duty  collected  from  sugars  consumed  in  1880  to  $2.45 


30 

per  100  lbs.,  and  in  1881  to  $2.46  per  100  lbs.;  but  the  average  for- 
eign cost  of  dutiable  sugars  in  1881  was  $4.42  per  100  lbs.;  showing 
that  false  classifications  still  exist,  and  that  we  should  have  received 
at  least  $2.76  duty  per  100  lbs.  under  the  present  tariff. 

Evidently  the  sugar  industries  of  the  country  are  entitled  to  $2.76 
duty  per  100  lbs.  protection  on  sugars  under  the  present  tariff,  while 
the  Carlisle  bill  accords  only  $2.40  per  100  lbs.  on  all  sugars  not 
above  13  D.  S.  in  color,  above  which  class  only  1,298,158  lbs.  were 
entered  for  consumption  in  the  year  ended  June  30,  1881,  out  of  a 
total  of  1,869,173.897  lbs.  of  dry  sugars  entered  for  consumption  in 
the  fiscal  year  named. 

Worse  than  this,  the  Carlisle  bill  reduces  the  dutj''  on  class  No.  10 
to  13  D.  S.  from  2.81^  to  2.40  cents  per  lb.;  this  class  covers  the 
beautiful  foreign  semi-refined  crystals  now  manufactured  in  Cuba, 
Demerara,  &c.,  in  vacuum  pans  to  test  from  95  to  99.5  per  cent,  in 
pure  crystals,  but  outwardly  colored  to  not  above  No.  13  D.  S.,  in 
order  to  enter  at  2.40  cents  per  lb.  duty,  while  melada  and  other 
actual  raw  sugar  material  intrinsically  low  in  grade,  test,  and  color, 
must  pay  2.40  cents  duty  per  pound,  or  be  prohibited. 

These  foreign  refined  vacuum  pan  colored  crj'stals,  over  which 
the  Carlisle  bill  and  the  1  cent,  per  lb.  plan  propose  to  establish  a 
tariff  protectorate,  as  I  have  already  shown  in  section  first  of  these 
exhibits,  are  intrinsically  sugars  that  should  class  above  No.  13  D. 
S.  in  color,  and  pay  3.43|  cents  per  lb.  duty ;  while  a  large  propor- 
tion of  such  sugars  are  found  intrinsicall}'  above  No.  16  D.  S.  in 
color,  and  should  pay  4.06J  cents  per  lb.  duty,  instead  of  2.40  cents 
per  lb.  as  raw  sugars;  it  is  foreign  vacuum  pan  crystals  colored  to 
evade  duty,  and  not  the  tarifi,  that  prohibits  the  importation  of 
Grocer's  Sugars. 

Glucose  adulteration  of  cane  sugar  is  also  cordially  encouraged 
and  invited  in  the  Carlisle  bill  and  uniform  duty  to  No.  13  or  16 
J).  S.  plans,  which  would  deprive  us  of  melada  and  raw  sugar  ma- 
terial, and  induce  refiners  to  reduce  Cuban  crystals  with  glucose,  in 
order  to  supply  the  demands  of  the  middle  and  poorer  classes  who 
cannot  afford  to  buy  the  rich  man's  sugar.  Corn  glucose  and  Cuban 
crystal  mixtures  would  be  a  poor  substitute  for  the  numerous  cheap 
grades  of  pure  refined  cane  sugar,  which  can  only  be  obtained  from 
low  grades  of  raw  sugar  material. 

Regarding  the  plan  of  one  cent  per  pound  duty  on  sugar  to  No. 
13  or  16  D.  S.,  or  even  on  all  sugars,  while  possessed  of  all  the  de- 
fects of  the  Carlisle  bill  it  also  reduces  the  revenue  from  sugar 
nearly  three-fifths;  that  is,  in  the  fiscal  3-ear  ended  June  30,  1881, 
dutiable  sugars  entered  for  consumption,  exclusive  of  melada,  paid 
an  averaged  $2.46  per  100  pounds  duty  on  1,869,173,897  pounds, 
$45,933,045  ;  while  one  cent  per  pound  would  have  produced  onlj 
$18,691,739  revenue  from  sugar  in  the  fiscal  year  1881. 

That  even  a  respectable  moiety  of  this  enormous  deficit  could  Act 


31 

be  made  up  by  increased  consumption,  is  evidenced  by  England's 
recent  experience.  In  1874  Great  Britain  abolished  duty  on  sugars, 
with  an  annual  consumption  of  59.40  pounds  per  capita,  an  act  she 
now  regrets.  Great  Britain  consumed  only  56.66  pounds  per  capita 
in  1877,  and  in  1880  only  62.25  pounds  per  capita.  Under  existing 
circumstances  this  country  would  lose  enormously,  and  could  gain 
nothing  by  any  wholesale  reduction  of  duty  on  sugars. 

The  increased  production  and  use  of  corn  glucose,  cannot  be 
checked  by  reducing  duty  on  sugar  or  by  abolishing  duty,  because 
the  cost  of  producing  corn  glucose  has  reached  its  maximum,  and 
competition  is  rapidly  cheapening  it;  corn  will  yield  70  per  cent,  of 
starch,  or  60  per  cent,  of  purest  glucose,  which  can  be  sold  at  half 
the  average  foreign  cost  of  cane  sugars  in  1881;  glucose  will  inevi- 
tabl}'  be  emploN'ed  in  vast  quantities  in  preference  to  cane  sugars,  for 
table  syrup,  for  brewing,  and  for  certain  candies;  legitimate  uses  to 
which  it  should  be  confined. 

JSTeither  can"any  wholesale  reduction  of  duty  cheapen  imported 
sugars,  simply  because  we  are  at  present  dependent  upon  Cuba  and 
Spanish  possesions  for  more  than  four-fifths  of  our  annual  supply 
of  foreign  sugars,  and  Spain  not  only  invariably  discriminates 
against  American  commerce,  but  is  bound  by  her  records,  to  in- 
crease the  export  tax  on  sugar  as  we  lower  the  duty  thereon  ;  there- 
fore sugar  cannot  be  cheapened  by  a  one  cent  duty. 

Nearly  three-fourths  of  Cuban  sugars  are  vacuum-pan  made  crys- 
tals intended  to  evade  the  Dutch  standard  ;  hence  the  average  foreign 
cost  of  sugars  entered  into  consumption  in  the  year  ended  June  30, 
1881,  was  $4.42  per  100  lbs.,  and  we  are  already,  comparatively,  de- 
prived of  raw  material  from  Cuba  ;  as  we  concede  duty,  Spain  will 
add  export  tax,  and  thus  maintain  high  prices. 

Uniform  duty  on  sugar  to  13  D.  S.  would  admit  foreign  serai- 
refined  crystals,  testing  95  to  99  in  purity,  at  the  lowest  rate  of 
duty,  from  which  refiners  must  turn  out  the  rich  man's  sugar  in 
-excess  and  deprivQ,«sA^  people  at  large  of  the  cheaper  grades  of 
refined  sugars  for  lack  of  raw  sugar  material.  Under  a  uniform 
sugar  tariti:"  refiners  could  obtain  drawback  on  exports  to  the  full 
amount  of  duty  paid  and  still  retain  a  large  part  of  their  out-turn 
from  centrifugal  cr3^stals  for  home  consumption. 

Having  briefly  disclosed  the  conspicuously  greedy  pretenses  of 
the  Cuban  or  uniform  duty  to  13  or  16  D.  S.  sugar  tarifi  plans  and 
the  shortsightedness  of  the  one  cent  per  pound  duty  plan,  I  now 
present  practical  remedies  for  existing  sugar  tariff  abuses  and 
defects,  with  brief  explanations  premised  by  a  comparative  sugar 
tarifi-"  exhibit  of  present  duty — 50  percent,  ad  valorem  duty,  and  an 
equitable  compound  duty,  calculating  foreign  cost  and  duty  upon 
100  pounds  for  convenience. 

The  following  exhibit  also  shows  the  general  equity  ot  the 
present  tariff  for  protection  and  revenue.     Its  enforcement  by  an 


32 


amendment  hereinafter  subjoined  will  correct  existing  abuses  and 
remedy  the  defects  of  the  Dutch  standard : 


Table  2. 


Class  average,  D.  S., 
per  100  pounds. 

a 

> 

< 

a) 
a 

OS 

ft 

IS 

< 

"3 
> 

6 

0 

*  Compound 
Sugar  Tariff'. 

$2.50 
3.50 
4.6234 
5.25  " 
6.12}^ 

6.50 

7.50 

8.50 

62  to  70° 
70  to  85 
85  to  92 
88  to  98 

92  to  99 

93  to  99 

94  to  99 

95  to  99.5 

$1.87U 
2.18^ 
2.50 
2.81K 
3.43% 

4.O6I4 

5.00 

5.00 

75 

62.5 

54 

53.5 

56.1 

62.5 

66.6 

58.8 

Sl.25 
1.75 
2.3114 
2.(!2U 
3.06i<| 

10  p.  c.  extra. 
3.90 

10  p.  c.  extra. 
4.50 

10  p.  c.  extra. 
5.10 

Sl.OO    @25  p.  c,  $1.62U 
1.00    @25  p.  c,    1.87t| 
1.12i^@25  p.  c,    2.28U 
1.25     @25  p.  c,    2.5614 
2.00    @25  p.  C,    3.531^ 

2.50    @.25  p.  c,    4.12}^ 

3.00    @25  p.  c,    4.873^ 

3.00    @25  p.  c,    5.1234 

Above  No.  10,  not  above  13 

Above  No.  13,  not  above  16 

Above  No.  16,  not  above  20 

*  Specific  and  ad  valorem. 

Xatural,  or  honest,  classifications  of  sugars,  according  to  their 
intrinsic  color,  quality,  and  foreign  market  value,  form  the  basis 
of  the  foregoing  tabular  exhibits;  all  sugars  made  from  cane-juice 
by  the  open-pan  process  and  finished  by  natural  draining  and  clay- 
ing, can  be  accurately  classed  by  the  Dutch  standard  alone,  from 
melada  and  the  purest  manilla  sugars,  testing  60  to  75  in  crystal, 
to  the  white  clayed  sugars  of  Java  or  Dutch  celebrity,  testing  99.5 
per  cent,  in  crystal  purity,  but  the  Dutch  standard  was  never 
designed  to  class  Cuban  crystals  or  vacuum  pan  centrifugal  sugars. 

The  foreign  vacuum  pan  process  of  inspissating,  graining,  and 
coloring  crystals  formed  from  classified  syrup  of  cane  juice,  as  ex- 
plained in  detail  elsewhere,  produces  manufactured  crystals  many 
times  larger  than  Dutch  standard  or  raw  sugar  crystals,  equal  in 
quality  to  the  best  hard  refined  sugar,  but  discolored  outwardly  to 
imitate  the  natural  color  of  raw  sugars  made  by  the  old  process, 
and  known  as  melada  and  natural  drained  muscovado  and  molasses 
sugars  throughout  the  world  ;  crushing  and  polarization  are  required 
to  aid  the  Dutch  standard  in  classing  these  colored  crystals  for  duty. 

While  the  right  of  foreign  producers  to  make  or  finish  sugars 
from  cane  syrup  by  the  vacuum  pan  process,  and  to  make  crystals  of 
any  size  they  see  fit,  is  unquestioned,  the  discoloration  of  sugar 
crystals  while  forming  and  when  formed  in  the  vacuum  pan,  is  an 
accessory  of  projected  fraud  in  the  entry  and  classification  of  superior 
sugars,  intrinsically  of  the  highest  degree  of  purity  and  value,  as 
raw  sugars  of  low  grades  to  evade  duty;  these  practices  can  only  be 
prevented  by  combining  grinding  and  polarization  with  the  Dutch 
standard  for  levying  duty  on  sugars. 

Such  being  the  case,  Congress  must  deal  with  facts  as  they  now 


33 

exist,  and  not  as  they  existed  in  1870  when  the  present  sugar  tariff 
was  adopted  and  Cuban  crystal  coloring  was  unknown,  in  order  to 
successfully  counteract  and  prevent  false  classifications,  which  now 
circumvent  the  Dutch  color  standard  and  subvert  the  intent  of  our 
tariff  laws;  practices  which  the  Carlisle  bill  and  uniform  duty  plans 
are  designed  to  legalize,  as  clearly  appears  in  these  exhibits. 

Sugar  tariff  legislation  intended  to  benefit  50,000,000  of  Amer- 
ican consumers,  produce  revenue,  and  protect  home  industries, 
should  be  based  on  the  natural  current  demands  for  home  consump- 
tion, industrial  protection,  and  revenue.  Were  there  but  one  kind 
of  sugar  known,  the  demands  for  consumption  would  be  speedily 
determined,  as  in  the  case  of  corn  or  wheat,  but  different  sugar 
producing  countries  offer  many  distinct  grades  or  varieties  of  cane 
sugar  material  for  our  selection. 

Formerly  only  melada,  raw  drained  sugars,  and  a  sprinkling  of 
clayed  sugars,  from  gray  to  white  in  color,  were  to  be  obtained  from 
producing  countries ;  hence  the  growth  of  refining  industries  in 
this  country,  as  the  tastes  and  demands  for  and  capacity  to  buy  lux- 
uries increased  with  our  national  growth  and  prosperity. 

There  is  nothing  rational  in  legislative  attempts  to  relegate  this 
industrial  outgrowth  of  American  advancement  to  foreign  control, 
neither  would  consumers  of  Louisiana  crystals  and  American  refined 
.sugars,  take  kindly  to  raw  muscovadoes  and  colored  centrifugals,  or 
to  the  enhanced  prices  that  would  follow  the  control  of  our  market 
by  foreign  refiners  and  producers. 

Hence  the  demands  for  consumption  in  this  country,  are  for  all 
grades  of  concentrated  raw  sugar  material,  from  the  lowest  to  the 
highest  grades  thereof,  but  in  varied  quantites  for  refining  purposes, 
in  order  that  the  refined  outturn  may  be  proportioned  in  cost  to  the 
necessities  of  the  poor,  as  well  as  to  the  demands  of  the  rich  ;  this 
requires  that  seventy  per  cent,  or  more  of  all  refined  sugars,  shall 
consist  of  refined  grades  corresponding  relatively  in  cost  to  the  lower 
grades  of  the  classifications  of  raw  sugar  material,  which  form  the 
basis  of  our  present  sugar  tariff. 

There  is  no  demand  from  consumers,  for  foreign  raw  white  clayed 
and  foreign  refined  sugars  for  immediate  food  consumption;  all  im- 
ported sugars  are  now  refined  in  the  United  States;  even  Cuban 
and  Demerara  refined  colored  crystals  99.5  per  cent,  in  purity,  are 
passed  through  the  American  refinery  at  a  nominal  cost,  to  remove 
the  outer  film  of  color  and  change  the  grain,  hence  the  demand  for 
foreign  raw  material  from  which  to  obtain,  pro  rata  as  to  cost,  the 
varied  outturn  needed  to  meet  the  varied  wants  of  consumers. 

On  this  equitable  and  rational  classification  or  ad  valorem  basis, 
sugar  tariff  legislation  should  be  founded,  and  the  rates  of  duty  be 
fixed  to  conform  to  the  demands  of  home  industrial  protection  and 
revenue  requirements;  the  present  tariff  already  favors  the  higher 
grades  of  sugar  ;  there  is  therefore  not  the  shadow  of  excuse  for  re- 


34 

ducing  the  present  rates  of  duty  on  high  grades  not  above  13  or  16 
D.  S.  in  color,  and  increasing  the  present  rates  to  prohibition,  on 
nielada  and  sugars  not  above  No.  7  D.  S.,  by  a  uniform  rate  to  No. 
13  or  16  D.  S. 

Honest  color  classifications  of  sugar  for  duty  are,  however,  no 
longer  the  order  of  the  day,  and  owing  to  foreign  crystal  coloring 
artifices,  it  is  no  longer  possible,  by  the  Dutch  standard  alone,  to 
accurately  determine  the  intrinsic  color,  quality,  and  market  value 
of  foreign  vacuum  pan  manufactured  centrifugal  crystals,  95°  to 
99.5°  in  purity,  discolored  in  the  finish  to  be  entered  as  raw  sugars 
of  low  grade,  but  onlj-  sembling  thereto  in  outward  color. 

Grinding  and  polarization  must  henceforth  be  employed  as  ad- 
juncts to  the  Dutch  standard,  in  order  to  accurately  determine  the 
actual  intrinsic  color,  quality,  and  foreign  value  of  dutiable  sugarg 
and  levy  duty  thereon  correctly,  just  as  these  agents  are  now  em- 
ployed by  foreign  vacuum  pan  and  centrifugal  sugar  producers,  and 
by  all  sugar  merchants  and  refiners  in  this  country  and  Europe,  to 
determine  the  market  value  of  sugars,  and  govern  their  transac- 
tions. 

The  evils  of  any  uniform  specific  rate  on  all  sugars  to  13  or  16 
D.  S.  even  though  bolstered  by  an  ad  valorem  clause,  are  equally 
damaging  to  American  interests,  while  to  extend  uniform  duty  to 
all  sugars  would  be  to  surrender  American  sugar  industries,  as  we 
have  surrendered  our  carrying  trade  to  foreign  control. 

Compound  duties  are  mostly  the  outgrowth  of  irrational  attempts  to 
compromise  between  wholly  specific  and  wholly  ad  valorem  rates  for 
levying  duty,  which  should  not  be  applied  to  sugars,  of  which  there 
entered  for  consumption  in  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1881,  in- 
cluding Hawaiian  sugars  and  melada,  no  less  than  1,966,617,950 
pounds,  valued  at  $88,463,464,  duty  collected  thereon  $46,318,073. 
As  such  a  plan  is  known  to  be  in  embryo,  an  exhibit  of  an  equita- 
ble compound  sugar  tariff  is  given  in  Table  2,  which  reveals  the 
complexity  of  such  a  tarifl^",  and  the  fact  that  any  uniform  duty  on 
all  sugars  would  destroy  all  equity,  even  in  a  compound  sugar  tarifif. 

Compound  or  mixed  sugar  taritt  plans  cannot  equitably  be  based 
upon  a  uniform  specific  duty  on  all  sugars,  whether  the  rate  be  one 
cent  or  less  or  more  per  pound;  what  sense  or  justice  would  there 
be  in  levying  a  specific  duty  equal  to  16|  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on 
semi-refined  sugars  that  cost  6  cents  per  pound,  and  33^  per  cent 
on  raw  sugars  that  cost  3  cents  per  pound,  or  40  per  cent,  on  me- 
lada and  lowest  grade  sugars,  and  plastering  the  whole  with  25  per 
cent,  more  ad  valorem  ;  it  only  ends  in  levying  65  per  cent,  ad 
valorem  on  the  poorest  raw  sugars,  58|  per  cent,  on  the  next  grade 
of  raw  material,  and  admits  semi-refined  Cuban  colored  crystals  at 
41|  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  to  destroy  the  industries  of  American 
sugar  producers  and  refiners,  and  complicate  the  collection  of  duty. 

Canada  furnishes  palpable  evidence  of  the  necessity  of  maiutain- 

r 


35 

ing  a  classification  sugar  tariff,  and  of  the  advantages  secured  by 
levying  duty  on  each  class  of  sugar  pro  rata  to  their  foreign  mar- 
ket value.  Mark  the  immediate" benefit  of  the  slight  but  important 
changes  made  in  1879,  in  the  Canadian  sugar  tariff  of  1877,  which 
admitted  American  refined  sugars  at  prices  that  speedily  closed 
Canadian  refineries, 

Suo-ar  Tariff  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  1877-1878  : 

Melada  and  concentrated,  &c.,  per  lb.  |c.  and  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 
Svrups,  all  kinds  cane  juice,  «&c.,   "      |c.     "    25         "  " 

Siigars  below  No.  9  D.  S.,  "      |c.    "    25         "  " 

Equal  to  9  not  above  No.  13  D.  S.  "      |c.    "    25 
All  sugars  above  13  D.  S.,  "      Ic.     "    25         "  " 

Under  the  above  tariff,  refined  sugars  could  and,  with  the  aid  of 
American  drawback,  did  enter  Canada  and  undersell  Canadian  re- 
finers, thus  destroying  their  refining  industry  and  shutting  out  raw 
sugars,  without  the  slightest  advantage  to  Canadian  consumers. 

Present  sugar  tariff  of  Canada  enacted  in  1879. 

Melada  and  concentrated,  &c.,  per  lb.  |c.  and  30  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 
Syrups  all  kinds,  cane  juice,  &c.     "      |c.     "     30         "  " 

Sugars  below  No.  9  D.  S.  "      ^c.     "     30         "  '• 

Equal  to  9  not  above  14  D.  S.         "       |e.     "     30         "  " 

All  sugars  above  No.  14  D.  S,         "      Ic.    "     35         "  " 

Simply  levying  five  per  cent,  extra  duty  on  sugar  above  No.  14 
T).  S.,  refined  sugars  in  fact,  and  levying  duty  on  the  American 
market  value  thereof,  shut  out  American  refined  sugars  from 
Canada,  and  not  only  started  Canadian  refineries,  but  tempted 
French  capitalists  to  undertake  numerous  beet  sugar  enterprises  in 
Canada,  and  virtually  changed  the  sugar  imports  of  Canada  from 
refined  sugars,  to  raw  sugars  for  refining,  in  a  single  year  as  follows: 

Dutiable  sugars  entered  for  consumption  in  the  Dominion  of 
Canada  in  the  fiscal  years  ending  June  30,  1879,  1880,  1881 : 


'                  1879. 
Classifications. 

1880. 

1881. 

JDutch  Standard. 

1    Pounds. 

i 

Value. 

Pounds. 

Value. 

Pounds. 

Value. 

Sugars  above  13,  and  from  Marchl 

15.  1879,  above  No  14 91,828,152 

Equal  to  9,  not  above  1.3,  and  from 
March  15.  1879,  n.  a.  14 19,390,746 

Sugar  below  No.  9  D.  S 1,844,818 

$4,680,310 

768,637 
64,722 

18,885,150 

56,403,251 
30,690,925 

$824,827 

1,847,205 
958,364 

15,858,005 

53,459,146 
58,964,513 

$756,186 

2,117,515 
2,003,539 

Melada !     1,650,215 

i 

846,446 

7,639,332 

$180,635 

6,844,512 

$192,800 

Refined  sugars  exported  to  Canada  from  the  United  States : 


1879.  53,717,659  lbs.  $4,235,348. 

1880.  731,909  lbs.   $66,921. 

1881.  369,557  lbs.   $30,301. 


This  country  has  immense  sugar  refining  and  sugar  producing  in- 
dustries to  protect  against  foreign  refining  and  colored  crystal  mak- 


3t) 


ing  iudustries,  which  are  raiding  upon  them  under  false  classifica- 
tions of  vacuum-pan  centrifugal  sugars,  discolored  outwardly  to 
imitate  raw  sugar  material  and  entered  as  such,  to  evade  duty  on 
their  actual  value. 

Stealthily  have  two  great  foreign  food  monopolies  invaded  our 
continent ;  the  one  protected  by  the  Reciprocity  Treaty  w'ith  Hawaii 
flourishes  upon  our  credulity  at  public  cost,  the  other  conducted  by 
foreign  chicanery  now  seeks  protection  from  Congress  through  the 
Carlisle  bill,  and  similar  uniform  sugar  duty  enactments.  The  les- 
sons of  experience  and  the  demand  of  consumers,  home  industries, 
and  revenue,  teach  that  these  stupendous  interloping  foreign  sugar 
food  monopolies  should  henceforth  serve  our  National  interests,  or 
be  destroyed. 

There  exists  but  two  rational  plans  for  a  sugar  tariif  in  this  coun- 
try; the  present  classification  tariff"  amended  and  enforced  by 
grinding  and  polarization  in  addition  to  the  Dutch  standard,  or  an 
actual  ad  valorem  tariff"  with  the  same  appliances  for  its  enforce- 
ment, and  radical  reform  in  the  execution  of  our  tariff'  laws,  which 
is  also  of  infinitely  greater  importance  than  tariff"  tinkering,  as  a 
means  of  enabling  Congress  to  reach  a  rational  basis  for  tariff"  re- 
vision. 

Actual  ad  valorem  rates  upon  dutiable  sugars  (see  Table  2)  involves 
the  necessity  of  adding  ten  per  cent,  extra  on  all  sugars  above  16 
D.  S.  in  color,  including  refined  sugars,  for  the  reasonable  protec- 
tion of  American  producers  and  refiners,  and  for  the  benefit  of 
consumers;  otherwise  foreign  bounty  fed  refined  beet  sugars,  and 
pure  Cuban  and  Demerara  vacuum-pan  crystals  of  natural  color 
would  be  favored,  which  would  speedily  destroy  American  com- 
petition therewith,  and  place  consumers  of  sugars  wholly  in  depen- 
dence upon  foreign  refiners  who  would  enhance  prices  accordingly. 

Evidence  of  the  gigantic  strides  already  made  by  Cuba  and  other 
near  sugar  producing  countries,  in  exhausting  their  raw  material  to 
make  semi-refined  vacuum  pan  crystals  of  highest  purity  therefrom, 
disguised  by  coloration  as  raw  sugars,  will  be  found  in  the  follow- 
ing table,  which  exhibits  the  potency  of  the  writer's  exposures  of 
coloration  devices  in  the  extensive  reversal  in  1880-1881  of  the 
false  classifications  in  previous  years — 1878-1879  for  example. 


Classification  by  the  Dutch  standard. 


1«78. 


Quantity. 


Sampled  and  claused  for  duty.  Pound». 

All  not  above  No.  7  Dutch  standard '  860,287,182 

All  aboye  No.  7  and  not  above  No.  10  D.  8 1  618',019',87t3 

All  above  No.  10  and  not  above  No.  13  D.  8 72'.'U(v'i74 

All  above  No.  13  and   not  above  No.  16  D.  S , 1,474^118 

All  above  No.  16  and  not  above  No.  20  D.  S 'ftfil|o(i8 

All  above  No.  20,  loaf,  and  other  refined 2161294 

Total  dry  sugar 1,552,875,112 

•-     ^^i 


Value. 


$41  ,.516,497 

33,232,883 

4,110,502 

73,831 

35,491 

10,866 


78,986,070 


Duty. 


818,818,784 

16,4.'J0,497 

2,033,904 

50,673 

22.793 

10,814 


36,387,465 


37 


Classification  by  the  Dutch  standard. 

1879. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Duty. 

Sampled  and  classed  for  duty. 

Pounds. 

890,801,182 

671.574,592 

35,556,456 

483,110 

20,221 

16,425 

§36,627,477 

27,614.075 

1,649,309 

25,627 

1,160 

1,283 

819,486,JT« 

All  above  No.  7  and  not  above  No.  10  D.  8 

10,789,365 
1,000,307 

16,607 

821 

All  above  No.  20,  loaf,  and  othor  refined „ 

821 

1,598,461,986 

65,918,931 

37,294,197 

1S80. 

Classifications  by  the  Dutch  standard. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Duty. 

Sampled  and  classed  for  duty. 

Pounds. 
299,298,496 
1,222,747,078 

811,394,541 
52,407,812 

86.547.154 

30,568,677 

1,904,796 

80,905 

4,817 

All  above  No  13  and  not  above  No  16  D   S  

2,353,604     \           118,229 

118.582                    8,453 

18,119                    1,502 

All  above  No.  16  and  not  above  No.  20  D.  S 

All  above  No.  20,  loaf,  and  other  refined 

1,592,261,957        867,015,831 

839,107,256 

1881. 

Classification  by  the  Dutch  standard. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Duty. 

Sampled  and  classed  for  duty. 
All  not  above  No.  7  Dutch  standard 

Pounds. 

401,626,484 

1,323,451,981 

142,797,277 

1,267,215 

12,241 

18,699 

815,395,744 

60,216,407 

7,044,675 

62,123 

538 

1,599 

$8,785,579 

33,086,300 

4,016,173 

43,561 

497 

935 

All  above  No.  7  and  not  above  No.  10  D.  S...„ 

All  above  No.  10  and  not  above  No.  13  D.  S 

All  above  No.  13  and  not  above  No.  16  D.  S 

All  above  No.  16  and  not  above  No.  20  D.  S 

All  above  No.  20,  loaf,  and  other  refined 

Total  dry  sugar 

1,869,173,897 

882,721,086 

845,933,045 

Average  duty,  per  lb.,  1878,  2.34e.;  1879,  2.33c.;  1880,  2.45c.;  1881, 2.46c. 
Ad  valorem  rate,  per  cent.,  1878,  46.06;  1879,  56.57  ;  1880,  58.35 ;  1881,  .55.52. 

Cuban  crystals  increased  the  foreign  cost  of  dutiable  dry  sugars 
consumed  by  us  in  1881  to  an  average  of  $4.42  per  100  lbs.;  the 
average  invoice  value  of  Cuban  sugars  only,  for  1881,  being  $4.85 
per  100  lbs.,  or  including  Spanish  possessions,  $4.60  per  100  lbs.,  as 
against  $3.84  per  100  lbs.,  the  average  invoice  value  of  dutiable 
sugars  from  all  other  countries  in  1881,  showing  the  disadvantages 
and  absurdity  of  depending  longer  upon  Cuba  and  Spanish  posses- 
sions for  raw  sugar  material,  which  they  now  semi-reline  at  the  ex- 
pense of  American  consumers,  industries,  and  revenue. 

Regarding  the  use  of  the  polariscope  as  an  adjunct  to  the  Dutch 
standard,  private  and  official  information,  currently  received  by  the 
writer  from  sugar  producing  countries  near  and  remote,  establishes 
the  fact  that,  in  countries  where  sugar  is  made  by  open  pan  methods 


38 

and  natural  evaporation,  inspissation,  and  drainage  only,  the  color 
test  remains  an  accepted  standard  of  absolute  market  value,  and  the 
polariscope  is  virtually  unknown  for  such  purpose. 

Contrariwise,  in  Cuba,  Demerara,  and  contiguous  sugar  produc- 
ing countries,  where  raw  sugars  and  cane  syrups  are  advanced  above 
their  normal  condition,  by  vacuum  pan  methods  of  making  or  finish- 
ing sugar,  and  also  in  all  the  great  sugar  marts  of  this  country 
and  Europe,  the  polariscope  is  invariably  employed,  as  an  auxilliary 
aid  to  the  Dutch  standard,  for  determining  value  ;  without  this  com- 
bination of  detective  forces,  trade  transactions  in  sugar  are  no 
longer  sate. 

Treasury  and  customs  officials  are  appointed  to  collect  the  revenue 
according  to  law,  unfortunately  no  tenure  of  office  exists,  conse- 
quently tarift' laws  are  too  often  lost  sight  of;  fear  of  the  headsman 
induces  officials  to  comply  with  Treasury  Department  decisions 
and  anomalous  instructions,  prepared  by  subordinates  having  au- 
thority at  their  discretion,  and  bearing  the  sanction  of  Executive 
commands,  in  the  formal  signature  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasur3^ 

Congress  must  be  well  aware  that  tariff  changes  are  fraught  with 
momentous  results,  broader,  deeper,  grander  than  the  mere  matter 
of  simplifying  and  lightening  the  well  paid  laborer  of  collecting 
and  disbursing  customs  revenue ;  therefore  what  may  be  recom- 
mended to  that  assemblage  as  acceptable  to  officials  or  necessary 
for  their  comfort,  should  be  considered  ^^  cum.  grano  salis,"  as  not 
always  being  conducive  to  the  commercial,  industrial  and  revenue 
interests  of  this  progressive  nation. 

Pending  legislation,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  should  no 
longer  permit  the  drying  of  cargo  samples  before  testing  the  same 
or  classing  the  sugars  for  dut}'.  Fully  recognizing  the  foreign 
devices  that  now  render  official  classifications  of  sugar  for  duty 
more  difficult  than  in  1870,  I  know  that  there  is  no  necessity  for 
drying  cargo  samples, — thus  changing  the  intrinsic  texture  of  the 
sugar, — before  testing  and  classifying  the  same  for  duty. 

Simply  grinding  cargo  samples  of  Cuban  and  Demerara  crystals 
or  centrifugal  sugars,  until  they  assimilate  in  grain  the  Dutch 
standard  examples  employed  for  comparing  color,  reveals  their  in- 
trinsic or  natural  color  effectually  ;  whereas,  grinding  leaves  the 
color  of  raw  sugar  material  or  drained  sugar  virtually  unchanged ; 
the  polariscope  should  be  applied  to  properly  drawn  cargo  samples, 
in  their  normal  condition  as  drawn  from  cargoes,  including  mois- 
ture contained  therein  when  taken  from  the  cargo. 

Refining  sugar  in  bond  under  official  surveillance,  should  also  re- 
ceive the  early  sanction  of  law ;  the  practice  would  simplify  the 
collection  of  revenue  from  sugar,  and  enable  importers  and  refiners 
to  largely  extend  their  operations,  and  thus  by  cheapening  sugars 
stimulate  consumption ;  cane  sugars  refined  in  bond  for  home  con- 
sumption, would  necessarily  be  pure,  because  duty  would  have  to 
be  paid  upon  the  full  outturn  from  bonded  sugars. 


39 

Refining  in  bond  would  also  encourage  the  production  of  refined 
sugars  for  export  to  foreign  countries,  and  thus  advantage  American 
commerce  and  home  industries;  with  the  privilege  of  refining 
sugars  in  bond,  and  the  advantage  of  drawback  correctly  adjusted 
to  "the  outturn  of  product  pro  rata  to  the  duty  paid  upon  the  raw 
material  employed  in  refining,  American  refiners  can  successfully 
compete  with  the  refiners  of  Europe,  for  their  own  and  other 
markets  of  the  world. 

Refining  in  bond  doubly  protects  the  interests  of  the  Government, 
inasmuch  as  sugars  bonded  for  refining  would  be  constantly  under 
oflScial  surveillance,  at  the  expense  of  refiners,  from  their  arrival  in 
port  until  the  refined  outturn  was  entered  out  of  bond  for  home 
consumption  or  export;  sugars  entered  for  refining  in  bond  would 
on  arrival  be  sampled,  tested,  weighed,  classed  for  duty,  and  sent 
direct  to  bonded  refineries,  the  refiners  giving  satisfactory  bonds 
in  double  the  amount  of  duty  levied  on  the  bonded  sugar  for  pay- 
ment thereof  when  the  refined  product  which,  less  loss  in  refining 
must  coincide  with  the  bonded  sugar,  was  entered  out  for  consump- 
tion or  export. 

Congress  should  also  practically  recognize  our  cane  beet  and 
sorghum  sugar  industries  as  available  and  powerful  factors  in  de- 
livering this  country  speedily  from  its  abnormal  dependence  upon 
Cuba  and  Spanish  possessions  for  sugar  food.  These  industries 
should  be  protected  by  judicious  legislation  which  gives  no  undue 
advantages  to  foreign  producers  and  refiners;  thus  considered  and 
encouraged,  the  capacity  of  Louisiana  and  other  States  for  pro- 
ducing cane,  beet,  and  sorghum  sugars  is  simply  measureless. 

One  of  the  most  eminent  and  skillful  sugar  refiners  of  the  age 
says:  "The  foreign  producer  has  manipulated  the  natural  color 
of  the  product  of  the  plantation,  and  thus  destroyed  the  equity  of 
the  Dutch  standard;  the  refiners  suti:er  with  the  Government,  and 
therefore  earnestly  advocate  the  introduction  of  the  polariscope  as 
a  detective."  The  same  authority  states  that  natural  raw  sugars 
range  entirely  below  92°  in  the  polariscope,  and  centrifugals  above 
92°  ;  centrifugals,  or  vacuum  pan  crystals,  can  be  lowered  in  color 
and  maintain  the  test  from  92  to  99°  in  purity,  and  also  their  excep- 
tionally high  value. 

Official  analyses  in  France,  numbering  more  than  7,000,  give  the 
following  results  :  Average  polariscope  test  of  raw  sugars  not  above 
No.  9,  D.  S.  in  color,  below  92  degrees  ;  sugars  intrinsically  No.  10 
to  No.  14  D.  S.  in  color,  average  test  above  91.25  to  94,55  degrees, 
and  sugars  intrinsically  No.  15  to  No.  18  D.  S.  in  color,  average 
test  above  94.55  to  97.36  degrees,  showing  that  sugars  testing  92 
degrees  and  above  are  advanced  beyond  the  normal  condition  of  raw 
sugars,  in  intrinsic  color,  quality,  and  value. 

The  results  of  many  thousands  of  tests  of  cargo  samples  of 
dutiable  sugars  examined  by  the  writer  and  in  his  possession,  also 
establish  the  fact  that  raw  sugar  material  ranges  below  92  degrees 
in  the  polariscope,    and  that  foreign  vacuum-pan   centrifugals  or 


40 

Cuban  crystals,  range  92  to  99  degrees  in  purity,  and  assimilate  re- 
fined sugars. 

The  following  amendment  to  the  present  sugar  tariff"  will  correct 
its  only  defects, — authorize  the  use  of  necessary  adjuncts  to  the 
Dutch  Standard  for  classing  and  levying  duty  on  sugar, — adequately 
protect  the  revenue  and  American  sugar  industries  against  foreign 
devices  of  disguising  semi-refined  sugar  crystals  as  raw  materal, — 
and  speedily  increase  our  commerce  with  remote  sugar  producin 
countries. 

More  radical  changes  in  the  sugar  tariff:' may  safely  be  postpone- 
until,  in  connection  with   other  important  commercial,  industn-j 
and  revenue  interests,  such  can  properly  be  adjusted  in  the  gen* 
tariff"  revision  now  demanded  hy  our  commercial  and  industrial 
vancement. 

Before  working  into  the  hands  of  interested  "  free  traders, 
who  mistakingly  or  purposely  would  plague  and  hinder  the 
vancement  of  our  industries  and  laboring  classes, — by  radical 
ductions  of  duties  on  imports.  Congress  should  relieve  the  pec    le 
from   direct  taxation,  still    perched  upon  the  Escutcheon   of  O'lr 
Union,  like  some  fowl  bird  of  pre3^ 

Consuming  as  we  do  annually  nine-tenths  {j\)  of  our  own  aggre- 
gate productions,  we  can  only  export  one-tenth  (Jo) ;  'instead  of 
having  a  surplus,  there  is  a  constantly  increasing  foreign  demand 
for  our  productions ;  the  American  people  are  in  no  mood  to  take 
free-trade  lessons  from  England,  which  country  collects  relatively 
more  revenue  from  tobacco  than  this  country  collects  on  sugar,  and 
has,  for  example,  been  badly  bitten  by  France  while  attempting  to 
deal  in  duty-free  sugars. 

Common  sense  and  experience  in  the  matter  of  coffee  and  tea 
teaches  that  any  radical  reduction  of  duty  on  sugar  will  at  once  be 
offset  by  enhanced  prices  of  raw  material  abroad  and  increased 
profits  to  dealers  at  home,  while  consumers  would  gain  nothing  by 
such  legislation.  Enable  the  Government  to  first  collect  the  full 
revenue  from  sugar  by  the  following  amendment,  then  a  reasonable 
and  permanent  reduction  of  duty  thereon  can  be  made  by  Congress 
understandingly : 

Amendment:  All  sugars  not  above  No.  10  D.  S.  in  color,  testing 
92  degrees  and  above  in  the  polariscope,  shall  pay  duty  as  above 
No.  10  and  not  above  No,  13  D.  S.  in  color,  and  duty  shall  be  levied 
on  sugar  by  testing  the  cargo  samples  thereof  as  drawn  from  the 
cargo,  including  moisture  therein  contained, 

Henry  A.  Brown,  Saxonville,  Mass. 

N.  B. — Recognizing  with  pleasure  the  valuable  assistance  cur- 
rently afforded  me  by  correspondents  and  officials  in  foreign  sugar- 
producing  countries  and  in  this  country,  to  each  of  whom  this 
pamphlet  will  be  sent,  I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  convey 
to  them  my  thanks.  Henry  A.  Brown. 


y«? 


I 


•M' 


a!a    001120^^^   7 


